Livingstone to rejoin Labor Party?

[Sabocat]

What do our UK comrades think of this?


A revealing episode: How Britain’s radicals lined up behind Ken Livingstone
By Julie Hyland and Chris Marsden
6 January 2004


On January 9 a specially appointed five-person panel of Labour’s National Executive Committee will review an application by London Mayor Ken Livingstone to rejoin the Labour Party.

Livingstone was expelled from party membership for five years in 2000 when, having been blocked by the party from running as its official candidate for London mayor, he stood as an independent. Labour’s gerrymandering of the selection procedure, coupled with its heavy-handedness in throwing out the longstanding MP, ensured that Livingstone won the mayoral contest, beating Labour’s official candidate into fourth place.


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/...4/liv-j06.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/liv-j06.shtml)

[Danton]

Love him or loathe him - there's no middle ground with Ken - Whatever his true motives (massive egomaniac constantly lusting after power) His reforms thus far have been kind to the average worker in London, the congestion charge is an unprecedented success and his role in keeping the tube part public and backing striking firemen and tube workers was most welcome...

[Sabocat]

Would he be an improvement over Blair, or just another same old, same old? Is there any chance at all in him bringing a strong socialist presence to Parliament?

[Danton]

Many things would be an improvement over Blair, Ken has deep roots within Labour - like a stubborn weed the reformists just could'nt uproot and shit knows they tried... It's an interesting development for sure , if it happens - a spanner could still be thrown in the works even at this late hour... The question is, if Labour consolidate their power with another general election win - will they feel confident enough to push people like Ken to the forefront, will the socialists re-emerge and recover some sembalance of trust from the working classes?

[Kez]

Livingstone if you remember was Londons head during late 80's i beleive with the GLC.

This is a great step in removing Blair, as it is symbolic of the movement towards the labour party by many a real Labour Party member, not the bullshit blairites. Also note big financial capitalist backers are moving back to conservative, and so are the scum papers. i think we are seeing the first artificial steps towards divergence of politics in Britain again, and i think Blair is stuck in the middle, and will fall through when the workers return back to Labour, as is the case with the trade unions, who are fighting for REAL Labour.

Come on Red Ken! :D

[toastedmonkey]

Is he a socialist?
he seems to be left at least.

[Kez]

Is he socialist? Not what we would believe to be so, is he a lefty, damn straight, and not an opportunist one, i genuinley believe he (wrongly) belives that he can use the system to benefit the least well off.

I think the readmitting of Ken served as a blow for Blair, and will provide a catylyst to weaken his authority over many questions he felt equally passionate about during the same time he called Ken a "disaster" and "an extremist"

[James]

I wasn't under the impression, unlike other posters, that this is something that Blair did NOT want to happen.

For example,
Blair was singing his praises the other day.

Brown HATES Red Ken - Brown was refused a seat on the Labour’s National Executive Committee - most probably the work of Blair. If Brown had been allowed a seat, i doubt Ken would be back in the party today.

Blair has made no attacks on Ken for a long time

Ken is relatively popular - Blair likes popularity. Blair did not like popularity which was on the side opposing Labour.

Labour's defeat in the mayor elections were embarresing to Blair.

The back benchers are becoming left again - and Blair knows this. He has recently pissed them off alot; foundation hospitals, tuition fees, refusing Brown a seat on that committee etc etc
He needs to win their support again; Ken being admited to the party could be part of a Blair bargin.
etc etc

I think this is what Blair wants. And i think it is a VERY good sign. It looks like politics over here is going back to beliefs (eg, Howard's "i believe" advert the other day); the time of statistics, pure results and spin is over. People want to know what a party believes. They want something with identity. Ken represents this.

And yes, i think it is good for the party. VERY good. I recently lost faith with my party, but this makes me start to feel good about it again. I may still yet consider renuing my membership later this year...

But i think its a little too optimistic, a bit of wish-full thinking; to think that this is the end of Blair. Maybe a more watered down Blair; but not the end. Not by a long shot.

[Kez]

i dont think Blair had a choice, if he hadnt of admitted him in, it would merely have increaseed the tension between the right and the left within the party, and be added to the rest of the shit blairs in with NHS, tution etc.

I dont think backbenchers ever became left or right, it was rather them speaking up, forced by their constituency Labour members, to speak up, rather than be lackeys.

This is how pressure of the workers works, either the Labour guy does what Trade union, workers, and party activists want, or they resign/get removed.

As for beliefs, i dont think Blair has any Labour beliefs, and his beliefs if they do become stronger, will merely agitate the differences within the party, and if were inside the party, were the ones kicking the bastard out

[James]

i dont think Blair had a choice, if he hadnt of admitted him in, it would merely have increaseed the tension between the right and the left within the party, and be added to the rest of the shit blairs in with NHS, tution etc.

You could well be correct. But i find it hard to believe that this has snuck up on Blair. He will have a plan...


I dont think backbenchers ever became left or right, it was rather them speaking up, forced by their constituency Labour members, to speak up, rather than be lackeys.
Sorry, thats what i meant. I worded it rather badly...