Nazis out of City Hall - Smash the BNP! posted by Richard Seymour

Well, I'm sorry I didn't post pics and footage from yesterday's demo sooner, but by the time I got back I was barely able to regurgitate my lager and cornish pasty never mind write up a post. Anyway, a couple of things: 1) it was an excellent turnout on very short notice and hardly any publicity at all; 2) after all the speeches and that, it was quite a good idea to have everyone surround City Hall chanting "Nazis out of City Hall - Smash the BNP!" I think Richard Barnbrook should have to hear that quite a bit over the next few months; 3) aside from Weyman Bennett being a good laugh, there was quite an interesting mood there. If I may put it like this, the organisers of Hope Not Hate may wish to reconsider their motto. This was hope and hate. I think people are fucking furious about the scum getting into the Assembly, and I would expect some very strong anti-fascist activity in the foreseeable future. Anyway, here's your pics and protest footage.

Labels: bnp scum, gla elections, nazi, unite against fascism

Early results posted by Richard Seymour

Well, first of all for the Left List, not bad so far. The Left List has not stood many candidates outside London, so the main event will be the results for the London mayor and GLA. Nevertheless, according to the Respect website, the results in the local council elections include 37% for Muktar Master in Preston, 23% for Neil McAlister in Bolton, 12.5% for Nahella Ashraf in Manchester, 11% for Raghib Ahsan in Birmingham, and a spate of other strong results. The full results for the Left List candidates are updated regularly here. These reflect continuing pockets of strength despite the obvious difficulty of having undergone a split and then, due to a legal technicality, having to launch a new name in a very short space of time. We're down in some places but notably Muktar Master actually increased his vote somewhat, and was barely kept out by the Labour candidate. Having seen the results for both sides of the split organisation, I can see that both have suffered somewhat in a number of areas. I am not going to get lachrymose about that - we all knew it was coming, and anyone who didn't had their head buried in rocks. The real question from my point of view is what sort of basis the mainstream of Respect that stood as the Left List has for a regroupment, and while we shall have to see how well we've done in London, these few results show that we're in a decent position. (I don't want to be rude, but I honestly don't think the Renewalists have any such basis, simply on account of who they are and the incoherent politics holding the fragile coalition together. My intuition is that they are going to spend a few years guarding diminishing pockets of strength and slowly seeping back into the Labour Party.)

The big picture, beyond insurgent left-of-Labourism, is that the Tories have made significant gains across the board, with 147 new councillors at the minute. According to The Guardian, with a turnout of 35%, "Labour looked set to be pushed into third place, with a meagre 24% share of the vote, trailing the Lib Dems on 25% and the Tories on 44%." This is a catastrophic low of New Labour's making, and it is self-evident that nothing beyond a sudden very popular policy reversal could have saved the situation. And the fact that it is going to continue in 2009 makes the task of building a left alternative all the more urgent. This is a perception quite contrary to the impulses of some who take it as a cue to rush back to the Labour Party. But that is British politics for you - the rats flee onto the sinking ship rather than the other way about. In addition to the Tories' success, the BNP have 8 extra councillors including two in the Labour stronghold of Rotherham and a couple of new ones in Coventry and Warwickshire. From what I gather, their overall vote has not surged and is probably even down a bit, which is a relief. But if the far right can pick up 8 council seats and that is not a big night for them, this just points to how much they have been able to insinuate their way into local politics on the basis of the toxic Islamophobia and bigoted nonsense about asylum seekers that their Express-reading petit-bourgeois constituents lap up. And we haven't seen their results in London yet - if they get someone on the assembly, we're talking about a whole new kind of fight, especially if it coincides with the victory for Boris Johnson that the fascists are eager for.

The liberals have done abysmally. In the prevailing circumstances, they ought to have been taking Labour councils. They certainly did far better under the slightly left-of-centre leadership of Charles Kennedy, but they are crashing and burning under an uncharismatic right-wing leadership after the Orange Book crowd mounted an effective coup. It's not just that they don't have any distinctive policies to speak of. They don't even have any resonant policy flavours. In 2005, they were seen as a major 'anti-war' party, and they made gains as a result. They seemed to stand against the corrupt and hated Blair regime on some principled grounds. Now the co-ordinates of the situation have drastically changed. They no longer have the affable Chuckie-Egg, New Labour no longer has Blair, and the Tories no longer have Michael Howard. Their London candidate is even less memorable than Susan Kramer and will be lucky not to see his vote fall below the 2004 level. True, the war is not as immediate an issue as it was before. If it points to everything that is rotten about New Labour and unites a broad swathe of people against the party, it has been eclipsed by the economic crisis and the government's responses to that - the public sector pay cuts, the blundering over Northern Rock, and the abolition of the ten pence tax rate. However, I can't believe that even supercop Brian Paddick really believed that people would storm the polls on the basis of a promise to 'cut crime'.

If these results are a reliable guide, it seems likely that New Labour are in for a hammering in London. And it's hard to see Ken Livingstone escaping from that - he might just scrape through on the basis of not being Boris Johnson, perhaps with a small lead in second preferences, but if so he's going to be presiding over an Assembly that has more Tories in it. The Greens, who have made a few gains nationally, but are generally on stalemate, may have been boosted by the attention given to them in the press coverage - Sian Berry is seen as somehow the 'natural' fourth candidate, despite the fact that the Greens were beaten by Lindsey German in 2004, and has already received the full backing of the Independent and a nod of approval from the Observer. Yet, the Greens have done little to distinguish themselves from New Labour, and it is hard not see their London campaign as an adjunct of Livingstone's. That is partially a result of a conscious decision not to seem left-wing, as the party's election agent Chris Rose has explained. Further, their record in power is pretty flimsy and sometimes disgusting - as per Jenny Jones' backing for Sir Ian Blair (so much for the party of civil liberties and anti-racism). Given that, it is just possible that they will suffer from some of the same reflux that is about to hit New Labour.

While I don't think people are moving sharply to the Right, the Tories are going to be the main beneficiaries of New Labour's woes for as long as the alternatives are faceless Lib Dems, rightward-moving Greens, and some small radical parties. And the Tories will be much more aggressive on privatization and public sector pay, and may well try to force through strike bans. There is no alternative to the project of realignment, which must be grounded in the organised working class.

Update: We've just got a brilliant result in Sheffield Burngreave, where we came second with about 23% of the vote, beating the Greens and the Tories.

Labels: bnp scum, boris johnson, gla elections, ken livingstone, left list, lindsey german, local council elections, london, sad sack liberals

And we're back. posted by Richard Seymour

Just in time for the election, the Tomb returns (like, er, Jesus and Easter and that). Just so that we're clear, this is your programme for today. You have three chances to vote, and what follows is an insultingly obvious step-by-step strategy for you to help secure the best possible result for the Left:

1. The Mayoral vote. PINK BALLOT PAPER
Has first and second preference. If you vote Lindsey 1 and Ken 2, you will in no way jeopardise Ken's chance of beating Boris Johnson. Voting Lindsey first will send a clear message that you are not happy with the way Livingstone is cosying up to City and the property developers.
Once the first preferences are counted, the top two candidates are set aside and everyone else's votes are re-distributed as per the second preferences. Once they are totalled the Mayor is decided. A second preference counts no less than a first preference.
Vote with a cross for No 5 Lindsey in the first column, if you want to put a cross for Ken in the second column.

2. The constituency candidates. YELLOW BALLOT PAPER
We are standing Left List candidates across the city, and the constituency elections are decided just like parliamentary elections - first past the post.
Vote Left List candidate with a cross.

3. The London Wide Assembly Member. PEACH BALLOT PAPER
This is perhaps the most important part of the election. It is proportional representation. If the Left List gets 5% of the vote, Lindsey gets elected. Conversely if the BNP get 5% they get a seat. We need the MAXIMUM turnout in this part of the election to get representation and to keep the BNP out.
One cross, next to No 8 Left List

Interesting to see what note the campaigns are heading to the polls on. Livingstone is rehashing his support for 'zero tolerance' policies, using the language of New Labour's 'Respect agenda'. He may just scrape through, but if he does it will be no thanks to his endless prostration before the Blairite court. Boris Johnson is wisely concealing himself from the public, and not saying too much about anything. This is presumably so that the first thing voters remember will not be a spoiled upper class reactionary who can't remember his lines, but rather a spoiled upper class reactionary who can't remember his lines on Have I Got News For You. The Greens, whose mayoral candidate is supported by the Federation of Small Businesses, have recently consolidated their pact with New Labour by launching a joint 'green manifesto' with Ken Livingstone. Brian Paddick is fading gracefully into the background, registering a pathetic 12% of the vote for the Lib Dems. I still don't know what exactly his campaign is about, beyond the fact that he is an ex-copper and considers himself the 'serious choice' for Londoners. I also heard once that he preferred hope to fear, which is nice, but I both hope and fear that he'll be doing traffic duty before the dust has settled.

So, at this glorious apex of Metropolitan democracy, in which no serious issue has failed to be neglected, there is only one candidate who doesn't believe in unaffordable housing, wants to slash tube and bus fares, isn't afraid to mention the war, and will back trade unionists. You know what to do.

Labels: gla elections, left list, lindsey german, london, mayor, socialism

Left List for London posted by Richard Seymour

From the Left List page, I see they've put up the election broadcast. Thought you all might like to see it, in case you're not in front of the television when it is broadcast tomorrow evening:

Labels: gla elections, left list, lindsey german, london, mayor

Election sums. posted by Richard Seymour

Guest post by 'christian h':

Those pesky preference votes...

First, the conclusion: A Ken (1st) - Third Party (2nd) vote is mathematically equivalent to a Third Party (1st) - Ken (2nd) vote as far as the eventual outcome is concerned. However, the Third Party (1st) - Ken (2nd) option is preferable as any second preference votes of Third Party won't be counted.

Here's how it works.

It's election time in Londongrad. Running for mayor are Dr. Evil (Boris, to his admirers), Mini Me (aka Ken) and Austin Powers (fusion of left-of-Ken candidates). The voting system is "preference voting", also known as "instant run-off voting." Voter X really prefers Austin Powers, but she absolutely doesn't want Dr. Evil to win. What should she do?

The system works as follows: every voter can assign two votes, a 1st and 2nd preference vote. It is legal to leave the 2nd preference blank, but it isn't possible to only vote for a 2nd preference. The votes have to go to different candidates. After polls close, all 1st preference votes are counted. If one candidate obtains more than 50% of those - that is, more votes than both his opponents together - he is declared the winner. Otherwise, all 1st preference votes of the candidate with the fewest votes are discarded and the corresponding 2nd preference votes counted instead. since only two candidates are left in the race, one of them now is guaranteed to win.

Assume there are 100 eligible voters in Londongrad. On election day, 78 come out to vote - the rest are watching football. Of those 78, 40 vote Dr. Evil 1st preference, 37 vote Mini Me, and one (that's X) votes Austin Powers. The next day, the website socialistsplitters.com accuses X of throwing the vote to Dr. Evil. Are they right? No. If X had voted Mini Me 1st preference, Dr. Evil still had 40 votes - more than half. In formulas, if E, M and A denote 1st preference votes for Dr. Evil, Mini Me and Austin respectively, Dr. Evil wins outright if and only if E > A + M. Only the sum of A and M matters, not the individual totals.

... phew, bad dream! Turns out, Dr. Evil got only 38 of the 1st preference votes, Mini Me 37, and Austin Powers got 3 (one of them cast by X). Now Austin has the fewest 1st preference votes, so they are discarded; instead, the 2nd preference votes on those ballots are now added to the totals of Dr. Evil and Mini Me. If at least two Austin-voters did their duty and voted Mini Me with their 2nd preference, Mini Me has 37+2 = 39 total votes to Dr. Evil's 38, and wins. Only if X and her comrades inexplicably decided to leave 2nd preference blank will Dr. Evil walk away victorious.

In formulas, if e, m and denote second preference votes of the Austin Powers voters, for Dr. Evil and Mini Me respectively, Dr. Evil will now win if E + e > M + m.

To recap, Dr. Evil will win if

(a) either E > M + A

(b) or M + A >= E and E + e > M + m. and E + e > M + m.

Since M + A is at least M + m and no Austin voter will vote Dr. Evil with 2nd preference (that is, e = 0), this simplifies to give that Dr. Evil will win if and only if E > M + m. That is, the only number that matters is M + m - a 2nd preference vote for Mini Me is equally as good as a 1st preference vote.

Labels: gla elections, left list, london, mayor, respect

Respect and the GLA Elections posted by Richard Seymour

Guest post by EastIsRed.

Last Saturday, around fifty activists crammed into one of the University of London Union's third-floor rooms to discuss the Respect campaign for the Greater London Assembly elections. The size of the meeting, and the geographical breadth it represented, came as a very pleasant surprise to many. Branches had sent on or two delegates each, which meant that the meeting represented a large and geographically diverse range of branches. Even areas where we are relatively weak, like south-east London, had some representation. Despite the internal arguments of the last few months, Respect activists across London were prepared to throw themselves into the campaign.

Because the possibilities remain: from the incipient recession, to the continuing occupation of Iraq , the space for a non-Labour left has expanded as perhaps never before. One important indicator is that those representing Old Labour values and significant social forces, previously tied exclusively to Labour, have seen where Brown is taking the Party, and have started to look elsewhere – not necessarily to Respect, naturally, but outside of Labour's thinning ranks.

So the large turnout was important. This was pretty much the first chance for Respect activists to meet up since "Respect Renewal" split from the organisation, and the first that provided the opportunity for a serious discussion of our strategy. George Galloway's exit from Respect had proved a distraction from real political work.

Discussion centred on two main points: first, a broad look at our strategy in the campaign; second, getting down to the hard slog of building an organisation and campaigning on the ground. The London elections are complex, by British standards: there's a mayor and a GLA to vote for. Each uses a somewhat different electoral system: you cast a first preference and a second preference for mayor, but you vote for a constituency candidate and then a party list for the GLA.

The party list vote is used to ensure the proportion of seats on the GLA matches parties' proportions of the citywide vote, and so smaller parties can manage to get a seat with a good poll across London. And – importantly – the preference system in the mayoral vote means you can vote for the candidate you actually like, followed by the candidate that will keep the Tories out – current mayor, Ken Livingstone. As he said, back in 2004, calling for a second preference Livingstone vote allowed Lindsey German and Respect to "campaign for her political position without risking a Tory victory."

This matters, because Livingstone's posse have been putting the word out that a left-wing challenge to the incumbent mayor will let the Conservatives take power in London. Either they don't understand the voting system or, more likely, they are being totally disingenuous: standing in the mayoral contest provides a brilliant platform for a candidate, with invites to hustings, media interviews, and so on, as well as London-wide mailshot of the candidate's manifesto. You don't get any of this if you just stand for the Greater London Assembly – a credible campaign for the GLA, in other words, absolutely demands that you also stand a candidate for mayor.

If you're pessimistic about building a non-Labour left, or simply wedded to the Labour Party, a credible campaign by the non-Labour left is the last thing you want to see. But Livingstone needs a left-wing challenge. His combination of nice noises about the war with appeasement for the City of London deserves to meet some opposition from the Left. It's absurd that Livingstone's (correct and necessary) opposition to Islamophobia should be taken as the only test he needs to pass; actually, this is the minimum we should be expecting from the "socialist" mayor of one of the most unequal cities in Europe. We simply have to raise our sights, and start to challenge the revolting concentrations of wealth, power and privilege that exist in London and across the UK.

Respect is unique in being the only electable organisation standing in these elections with anything worthwhile to say about the economy and, in particular, the City. No-one else will touch the bankers and the speculators: Livingstone has bent over backwards to accomodate them for the last eight years; Johnson doubtless fagged for a few at Eton; and the Lib Dems are firmly committed to the City's agenda, proposing (amongst other things) to ban strikes for public sector workers. Even the Green Party in London , as far as can be told, has said nothing on the issue.

So on what is fast becoming the most decisive political question – and the economy is a political question, whatever our neoliberal friends say – the main parties are in consensus: no challenge to the City, no change to the status quo.

This is hugely to Respect's advantage. There's a crying need for someone to stand up to the sort of free-market vanishing-point lunacy that has just seen the Government desperately bribing fat cats with our money to take Northern Rock off its hands. Livingstone and the London Labour Party aren't going to.

Of course, the recent attacks on Livingstone have been unfair: in many ways, I can't think of a better Mayor for the City, one better able to soft-soap his left-leaning constituents into accepting a London Plan written fundamentally entirely around the City's needs, or into tolerating a chief economic advisor (John Ross) who sings the praises of hedge funds. Former Tory candidate Stephen Norris couldn't do it: much of London would be up in arms if this king of PFI tried anything similar. Likewise for Johnson. That Livingstone's vision for the capital has effectively collapsed into City boosterism is a terrible shame – it's not particularly surprising since he's pulled, especially, by his ties to New Labour - but it is still a shame.

As such, there's an air of unreality about the politically unhinged Martin Bright laying into Livingstone for being too left-wing. It goes without saying that Livingstone needs defending from the red-baiting filth Bright and his new Tory friends are hawking about: Bright, this professional Islam-basher and habitual friend of the hard Right, should be treated with the contempt he richly deserves. It should go without saying, too, that Livingstone deserves any left-winger's second preference – better a London mayor who opposes the Iraq war and racism, than a racist who militantly supported the invasion of Iraq. It's perfectly obvious which one is closer to ordinary Londoners.

There's an argument out there that the Left shouldn't even stand against Livingstone for precisely those reasons. It was kind of "Respect Renewal" to confirm everything we said about their split from Respect by having their leadership come out in wholehearted support of Labour's candidate for Mayor. It's perfectly clear, now, that what took place was a left-right split: one side wanted an independent, non-Labour organisation of the Left; the other side was quite prepared to compromise with New Labour, even to the point of ducking key political questions. And the outbreaks of bafflement and consternation amongst the waifs and strays on what we must suppose is Renewal's left-wing show exactly why a new formation of the Left needs a leadership accountable to its members – which was, of course, precisely the point.

Although I strongly suspect those elements of Renewal's leadership now trooping off rightwards to a happy marriage with New Labour would dearly love to really trash Respect on the way, they're not in a good position to do so: they've ruled out a mayoral candidate and they're only standing one constituency candidate in the GLA. However, they've put the word out that George Galloway will be heading up an anti-Respect GLA slate.

This may just be an attempt to put the frighteners on Respect, because it looks distinctly cack-handed otherwise: aside from the lopsidedness of supporting Livingstone, but then opposing his party, I will be amazed if they can mobilise the sort of London-wide political resources they need to run a convincing campaign across the city – especially without the added publicity of a mayoral candidate. One of the perils of relying too heavily on local opportunism is that you end up with the bulk of your membership scarcely bothered by what happens on the other side of Whitechapel High Street, let alone Norwood or Uxbridge.

Last April, when Lindsey German was selected unanimously by a meeting of more than 300 Respect members, the arguments were very different. Responding to a Morning Star editorial, which opposed a Respect mayoral bid, George Galloway MP and Lindsey German wrote a 900 word reply, which the Morning Star reprinted. They expressed surprise that the Star would urge a "free run" for Livingstone. "The Respect candidate came fifth in the last election, beating both the British National Party and the Greens. Yet you do not direct your appeal to the Green Party, which could also be accused of splitting the vote." Further:

The electoral system for London mayor actually makes it very hard for the vote to be split, since it operates on the basis of transfers - all candidates bar the top two have their second preference vote distributed to eventually determine the winner. Respect's candidate was the only one to call clearly for transfers to Ken in 2004 and more than a quarter of those voters responded - a relatively high proportion. And there is no reason to suppose that, if Respect does not stand, its voters will turn out in a greater proportion than our transfers and vote for Ken.

They stressed the importance of a "strong left voice" being expressed on "the issues facing Londoners - the acute housing crisis, which is not being dealt with, the transport system, which is both the most expensive and one of the worst in the world, the privatisation of the East London Line and the business agenda, which is making London a worse place for many of the poor to live". And they added:

Many Londoners are dissatisfied with the record of new Labour in government and will not turn out to vote Labour in the numbers that they once did. A vote for Respect by these people will help the left and can help Ken by lifting the left vote overall from people who might otherwise abstain.

A good vote for Respect will also help to keep the fascist BNP off the assembly. More votes for new Labour will not keep the BNP off the assembly, because the proportional representation system favours the election of smaller parties. So, the only way of keeping the BNP off is to vote for a left-wing, smaller party.

Respect is the obvious candidate for this vote - but its chances will be undermined without the publicity that comes from standing a mayoral candidate.

These arguments are as incisive today as they were in April. The difference is that George Galloway and his supporters are no longer making them. No matter. Respect, as the GLA meeting showed, has activists in place from Newham to Neasden. Reports across the city are promising: Respect members are involved in campaigns to defend victimised trade unionists, against council house stock transfer, and against city academies. In Waltham Forest, north-east London, we face an immediate electoral challenge with a local council by-election. There are very good reason to think we can get a credible vote. There's no guarantee about this, especially with Labour and the Lib Dems throwing themselves into the contest, but if our candidate, Carole Vincent, can get the sort of vote Respect has been achieving up and down the country, we'll be on target for the GLA. (Anybody wanting to help with the campaign can find details here.)

Lindsey German was, after all, just 4,000 votes short of election last time round – and that was when Respect was just a few months old. We beat the BNP and even the Greens into 6th and 7th places on the mayoral vote. Just 0.43% more of the vote would've lifted Lindsey over the magic 5% hurdle, and onto the GLA.

Around 23% of our vote came from the City and East constituency, where Galloway currently has his only activist base. Even if half of that vote disappears as a result of the split, a good campaign across the rest of London still puts the GLA well within our grasp. There is not only a need but a real thirst for a left-wing challenge to the neoliberal consensus. It can be seen all over: from the sold-out film-showing we held last Sunday, to the excellent recent attendances for Respect meetings across the country.

We've also had vastly more experience running elections now, and have a hugely higher brand recognition, and a significantly larger membership and activist base. The split has damaged us, of course, but not as much as might be supposed: and, remember, we elected our first councillor a long time before we elected George Galloway. It was impossible to come away from the GLA planning meeting without thinking that we were in with a shout, giving a voice to the hundreds of thousands of ordinary, working-class Londoners excluded by all the main parties.

The Respect GLA campaign launch is a week today, Thursday, 31 January, at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square WC1, from 7.30pm. If you want an alternative in London to the parties of neoliberalism and war, you need to be there.

Labels: gla elections, london, mayor, new labour, respect, socialism