LONDON DEFEATS TONY BLAIR: THE CONSEQUENCES OF CITIZEN KEN
By Tariq Ali

In these times of political adversity for the left, Ken Livingstone's
spectacular triumph against the culture and politics of New Labour marks an
important turning point in English politics. Blair refused to accept
Livingstone as the Labour candidate because he was 'too leftwing', even
though Labour Party members had voted for him in the primaries. Livingstone
broke dramatically with New Labour and stood as an independent. He won 58
percent of the votes cast. The Toty Norris was second with 42 percent and
Blair's poodle, Frank Dobson came third with only 13.1 percent of the vote.

The victory should not be underestimated simply because it was expected.
This is no isolated fissure. It has wide implications for the future and an
objective impact, which is independent of anything Ken Livingstone may or
may not do in the coming months and years. Blair was humiliated in London.
The desperation of hard-core Blairites who voted for the Conservative
candidate, Steve Norris as their second preference failed to affect the
final outcome. The Murdoch press could not deliver a victory against
Livingstone. Nor could Polly Toynbee and Hugo Young in The Guardian convince
recalcitrant readers to vote for Norris or Dobson. Former supporters of
Livingstone (Paul Boateng, Tony Banks, Margaret Hodge), who were wheeled on
to TV programmes like a troupe of performing monkeys and danced grotesquely
to the tune of the organ-grinder at No 10, had no effect. Cuddly old left
MP, Denis Skinner, revelling in his role as a tame parliamentary mascot, was
happy to please Blair in public and denounce Ken's 'betrayal of Labour'
(i.e. the decision to take on Blair and let the electorate decide). It had
nil impact. The negative campaigning rebounded against the New Labour
machine, isolating them further from their traditional supporters. Citizen
Ken defeated the machine.

Thus was a mighty blow struck against the Blair Project. New Labour's paid
spin-doctors, not to mention careerist weasels of every stripe (robotic
implants of the Mandelson-Campbell regime in the media) will be working
full-time to deny this while simultaneously attempting to reassure the 'core
vote' from now till the next general elections that Blair is working in the
interests of the disadvantaged. New Labour's most favoured enema for its
supporters in the PLP and the media is a frothy combination of historical
amnesia and plain untruths. But the old spin is no longer working working.
An opinion poll published in The Guardian on 16 May shows a very sharp drop
in support for New Labour and in Blair's personal popularity. A discredited
and ultra-reactionary Conservative Party under skinhead leadership is only 4
percentage points behind. This confirms the local election results in which
the Conservatives gained 593 seats and won control of 16 cities. Labour lost
598 seats and 15 cities. The reason for this turnaround is not that Labour
voters switched sides. They stayed at home in protest against New Labour's
capitalist policies. The 'third way' , a crude presentational device is
dead. Professor Giddens' attempts to render this absurdity more profound
will rebound badly on any credibility he still retains.

Ever since he succeeded John Smith as leader of the Labour Party, Tony Blair
and his cohorts, New Labour bureaucrats, whose horizon of reference was
wiped away by the mudslide of Thatcherism , have been telling us that
traditional social-democracy was over, that New Labour represented a break
with old reformism, that there was no real alternative to the rock-strewn
path laid down by Margaret Thatcher and that in order to succeed, New Labour
had to become a party of free enterprise. Livingstone's victory challenges
this thesis. More importantly, it opens the door for others to do the same.
The political and psychological impact of what has happened will be felt
over the next few years. The Blair-people, who till recently proudly
stressed their continuity with Thatcher and pledged to outdo her
'radicalism' by 'modernising' the social welfare system and carrying on with
her programme of privatisation's: the post-office, the air-traffic
controllers and the London Underground. To oppose this, Labour Party members
were told, was futile. There was no alternative. The 'third way' was the
mask chosen to disguise unadulterated neo-liberalism. Inequalities between
rich and poor have continued to increase under Tony Blair. This is the
difference between New Labour and previous Labour governments, including the
one led by Harold Wilson. The scale of Labour's electoral victory in the May
1997 general election surprised its leaders. They had fought a banal
campaign, strong on presentation, weak on politics. It stressed continuity
with the old regime rather than any serious change. Blair's presidential
demeanour smacked of Bonapartism. His image was used to reassure voters that
he was not too different from the Tories who had governed Britain since 1979
and that he would be a friend of big business. It was publicly stated by
Blair and his spin-doctors that the trade unions would be kept at arms
length. It was also widely hinted that Blair and his group would like to
detach the Labour Party from the trades unions altogether. A modern,
democratic party had no time for old-fashioned conflicts. The culture of New
Labour is, essentially, not simply to maintain the status quo, but to defend
it as an achievement of the free market and insist that there is no conflict
between corporate interests and those of working people. The result is that
social inequalities have increased under the Blair regime. Small wonder that
Roy Hattersley, a traditional social democrat, began to sound very radical
whereas all he was doing in his regular Guardian column was reiterating
traditional Labour commitments to a modest degree of social justice. All the
'core vote' wants is a little dose of the Hattersley. But if Blair begins to
concede to this pressure both he and his project might collapse.

Ideally Blair wanted a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats to
lay the basis for a new Centre Party that could dominate politics for the
next fifty years. At least that was the desire, but the big electoral
majority made any such wish a utopia. The chance could now recur, opening up
space also for the emergence of a new, broad party of the left which unites
socialists to the new breed of anti-capitalists and environmentalists.
Britain, because of its electoral system, is the only country in Western
Europe which has not yet witnessed a serious electoral grouping to the left
of old social-democracy. The Labour Party has, till now, utilised the system
to preserve its monopoly hold on democratic representation of the working
class and radical middle-class voters. The introduction of a form of PR in
Scotland and Wales broke this monopoly.

The one area in which New Labour found it difficult to renege on pledges
made while in Opposition was devolution. It was the single issue which would
have brought out all the simmering tensions and hatreds within the Labour
Party. Blair's statement to the effect that new Scottish Parliament would be
similar to a parish council provoked real anger. The control-freakery was
designed to prevent the new bodies from being effective by making sure that
the New Labour filter trapped and trashed the dissent at an early stage. It
was a crude measure whose aim was to ensure that whatever happened, Downing
Street was in control. The strategy backfired. Ken Livingstone's victory
repeated Denis Canavan's success in Falkirk. Where New Labour could they
fudged the promised changes. The House of Lords could have been abolished or
transformed into an elected chamber.

Blair opted for a House of Cronies. New Labour, Old Corruption. The
referendums in Scotland and Wales were duly held and the citizens of these
two regions voted to set up their own Parliament (in Scotland) and Assembly
(in Wales). The Scottish National Party(SNP) and Plaid Cymru provided the
main opposition to New Labour and both the nationalist parties were to the
left of Blair on issues of both domestic and foreign policy. In Scotland
many former Labour voters deserted to the Nationalists. The pattern in Wales
was the same. Neither of the two nationalist parties waged an anti-English
campaign. Both stressed the importance of Europe and a progressive social
policy.

The presence of these two parties has partially solved the problem of a
social-democratic opposition to the political-economy of New Labour. Ken
Livingstone's challenge to Blair is the first serious blow to confront the
Goivernment in England. The victory could change the political mood inside
and outside the Labour Party. Members of the PLP, fearful of losing their
seats (as many of them will) might begin to rediscover themselves. Politics
in Britain has become fairly volatile. The experience of New Labour in
office has dented old certainties. Loyalty to New Labour is far less blind
than before. The reason is simple. The Blairites have transformed the old
'broad church' party into a demented faction. It is this that explains the
frenzy of the new apparatus. Any serious disagreement is disloyal, any
alternative policy is 'why we were unelectable' and any attempt to organise
the Left is a return to the bad old days of the Militant tendency. The only
way to defend Labour Party democracy was to destroy it altogether.

A new party is desperately needed. The high vote achieved by the Greens, the
fact that the London Socialist Alliance (an alliance of a few Trotskyist
groups, dominated by the Socialist Workers Party) denied New Labour a
victory in Camden and Barnett, is a sign of something new, even though the
fascist and ultra-nationalist vote exceeded that of the far-left, a reason
to pause and reflect. Pressure is now building up inside the Labour Party to
re-admit Ken Livingstone. If the Blair machine resists this it will isolate
them further from their own party members. Tony Benn has pointed that if
Conservative turncoats like Shaun Woodward (a former apparatchik in
Conservative Central Office) are being welcomed, why not Livingstone. The
answer is obvious. To re-admit Ken would be to accept that the Blair Project
had failed, for the Mayor of London is now a leader of equal stature with
Tony Blair. Livingstone still dreams of leading the Labour Party and
entering No 10 Downing Street as Prime Minister one day. He is happy to
wait. Newspapers which opposed Livingstone, such as the Financial Times and
The Guardian are now panicking, trying to invent excuses. The former argues
that 'Britain is now in the grip of a new form of politics'. This is only
partly true.

What we have experienced is, essentially, a protest by Labour voters. They
are not happy with New Labour. Attempts to win them back by putting a bit
more money in education, health and social welfare is unlikely to work. It
would need a big gesture, such as re-nationalising the railways network,
that might enthuse voters, but this seems unlikely. Meanwhile, inside the
Parliamentary Labour Party, there is growing anger and fear. Labour MPs are
scared of losing their seats at the next election. Some supporters of Gordon
Brown, the Chancellor, are now not bothering to conceal their hatred of
Blair and referring to him as 'a Thatcherite'. If New Labour continues to
plummet in the opinion polls, pressure will build up to ditch Blair, though
this is unlikely before the next elections.