Owen Jones: The 1 per cent have an interest in demonising Ken Livingstone

from:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/owen-jones-the-1-per-cent-have-an-interest-in-demonising-ken-livingstone-7640660.html

Owen Jones: The 1 per cent have an interest in demonising Ken Livingstone

Few journalists mention Boris's slights against black people: all that talk of 'piccaninnies'

OWEN JONES

FRIDAY 13 APRIL 2012

inShare18

PRINT

A A A

EMAIL

Latest in Commentators

Lucy Snow: Striking teachers deserve our support, not vitriol

Rebecca Armstrong: Forget buying things – I want to live in my top shops

Meredith Alexander: The scandal of our Olympic sweatshops

Alistair Dawber: Kofi Annan has achieved all that he could through talk – but this is not a ceasefire

Kim Sengupta: Strikes show Taliban feel no need to wait for Nato exit

James Cusick: Leveson can probe the Yard's conduct

Sebastian Murphy-Bates: Why intrusive evangelists should leave their beliefs at the door

Harriet Walker: 'We all fool ourselves into believing we are above loss'

Patrick Cockburn: The West practises double standards in the Middle East

Paul Vallely: Sanctions helped give Burma a new start

Ads by Google

• Trainee Accountancy Jobs
  The latest Trainee Accountant jobs. Register free & apply online today.
  www.AccountancyAgeJobs.com
• Grants For Solar Panels
  Find Out if Your House Qualifies? Check Your Postcode Online Now!
  which-solar.co.uk/Postcode-Check
• Exercise Your Brain
  Games You Didn't Know Existed to Fight Brain Decline and Aging.
  www.lumosity.com
• Generation IT 2012 Report
  IT Leaders Discuss the State of the IT Function. Download the Report!
  www.modis.co.uk/GenerationIT

News in pictures

Opinion blogs

John Prescott says Twitter holds Press to account

John Prescott, writing in the May edition of Reader’s Digest (there is an extract here, but yo...

Some people are homophobic. Get over it!

You've got to give it to the evangelicals: they get the job done. In little more than 24 hours, the ...

Ann Widdecombe on hating the coalition, doing Big Brother and her rude autobiography

“If they had offered me the Lords, which they did not, I would have taken it.”

Suggested Topics

• Ken Livingstone

Being on the left in public life means automatically inviting ridicule and venom. While only just over a fifth of eligible voters opted for the Conservatives at the last election, most of our media is firmly in the right-wing camp. Hacks and hit blogs pounce on every gaffe and any plausible example of a personal failing that clashes with left-wing beliefs: the right relish nothing more than exposing a socialist hypocrite.

Even a left-winger who is as close to unimpeachable as is humanly possible can expect a kicking, and Ken Livingstone is certainly not that. He dominated London politics before I was even born, giving him ample time to amass a wide array of enemies. His refusal to stick to the bland script of the modern politician wins support for independent-mindedness, but it has also caused offence. He was right to take a stand on massive tax avoidance by the wealthy at a time when chunks of the welfare state are being hacked away, and wrong not to order his accountant to avoid the many tax loopholes available for the well-to-do.

But it's clear that all-out war is now being waged against Ken. A display of human emotion at his campaign video launch led to a tirade of abuse from the obsessive, no-holds-barred right-wing Twittersphere, and mocking headlines in virtually every right-wing newspaper. As election day approaches, the chorus of abuse gets ever more shrill.

The Get Ken coalition includes right-wing hacks like Boris Johnson's Daily Telegraph colleague Andrew Gilligan, who is all but obsessed with Ken. He accuses Ken of having "links with Muslim extremists", arguing that it is "one of his most disturbing features", despite Gilligan himself being a former presenter on Iran's state-funded Press TV, which says all you need to know about Ken's most aggressive assailants.

And then there are Blairite ultras in Ken's own party, savaging him on websites such as Labour Uncut, who have never forgiven him for winning two major elections precisely by rejecting the New Labour formula. They attempt to kid themselves that Labour should have fielded a Blairite candidate, as though a politician with a record of total loyalty to all of New Labour's unpopular policies (such as the Iraq war – which Londoners overwhelmingly rejected) would fare well against a Tory Mayor adept at distancing himself from the Conservative brand.

Some of the smears thrown at Ken have veered between the ridiculous and the offensive. The award for chutzpah has to go to Tories who have accused him of homophobia. Ken may be straight, but he is Britain's equivalent of another local government campaigner for gay rights, 1970s US politician Harvey Milk.

When Ken made the case for gay rights as leader of the Greater London Council in the early 1980s, he was courageous indeed: at the time, two-thirds of the population thought homosexuality was wrong. The Tories went on to introduce Section 28, deliberately dipping into the deep well of homophobia. Surreal for a gay man like myself to imagine that, just a generation ago, we were widely regarded as perverts: it is a sea change in attitudes down to gay rights pioneers like Ken.

Contrast to Boris Johnson, who lauded Section 28 on the basis that "we don't want our children being taught some rubbish about homosexual marriage being the same as normal marriage", referred to "pulpit poofs" in the Church, and suggested that if two men could tie the knot, why not "three men and a dog"? Not that anyone is scrutinising such bigotry: it's just Boris being Boris, it's just his clownish manner. It's presumably for the same reasons that so few journalists mention his slights against black people: all that talk of "piccaninnies" with "watermelon smiles", or slamming the Macpherson Inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case for "hysteria".

The same standards are certainly not applied to Ken. I never dismiss accusations of bigotry against Jews lightly. For most of the time I've been a Londoner, I've lived with two close friends who are the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. The attempted extermination of the Jewish people – the culmination of two millennia of anti-Semitic persecution – remains a memory in the minds of people alive today.

It is extremely serious to cry anti-Semitism, not least if it prevents us from identifying the real thing. In Ken's case, the accusation was bandied around recently because – when asked about an alleged lack of Jewish support – he suggested that Jewish voters would divide in allegiance much as the rest of the electorate, with those who were wealthier opting for Boris. His opponents cynically misconstrued this as Ken reviving that old anti-Semitic caricature of the "wealthy Jew".

But, again, Ken was pushing the cause of anti-racism in the early 1980s with an enthusiasm that was dubbed "loony left". When Ken was Mayor, he sponsored the anti-racist music festival Rise – and, sure enough, when Boris entered City Hall, he stripped the event of its anti-racist message, and then abandoned sponsorship altogether. Not that Boris hasn't found his own persecuted minority to champion: the bankers, who he suggests are treated like "lepers". And he has his own crusade against injustice: namely the 50p tax, which only affected the top 1 per cent (including himself). If the wealthiest 1 per cent were to grow arms, legs, foppish hair and a manufactured bumbling demeanour, it would be Boris.

And then there are the issues which – in this dirty US-style campaign – have been driven off the agenda. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, which is why Ken's pledge to introduce a London Living Rent is so important. I'm about to move: scanning through Gumtree, I was horrified at how much rents have surged. Indeed, last year average rents soared by 12 per cent in the capital.

There is the promise to reverse soaring travel fares at a time when Londoners face the biggest drop in living standards since the 1920s. And then there's the promise to reinstate the Educational Maintenance Allowance for poor sixth-form kids.

If Ken loses, it will be a victory for a right-wing machine, its appetite whetted and ready to shred the next target. Ministers will undoubtedly respond as they did with the passing of the NHS privatisation Bill: pounding the Cabinet table with their fists. But while Millionaires' Row will have its champion back in City Hall, ordinary Londoners will be hit by ever-rising rents and fares.

The battle is on – between an imperfect Labour candidate, and the perfect embodiment of Britain's booming elite.

"Elected mayors cannot deliver a localist revival"

from

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/george-jones/elected-mayors-cannot-deliver-localist-revival

Elected mayors cannot deliver a localist revival

George Jones, 16 April 2012

In response to the recent OurKingdom article by Guy Lodge: Mayors for all English cities? A democratic argument.

It is ironical that Guy Lodge, who wants to “combat” our centralized system of governance”, should welcome the Government’s decision to impose referendums in May on 11 English cities about whether they should adopt directly-elected mayors [DEMs]. A genuine localist would have left it to localities to decide if they wanted a referendum. These 11 cities have had the opportunity to hold referendums since 2001 but did not want them. They could have had one if a public petition from only 5% of the electorate had been in favour of a referendum, but none reached the threshold. Central government has forced an unwanted referendum only once before, in 2002 on Southwark, where the “no” vote was 68.6%.

The case for leaving the choice to localities was brought home to me vividly when I chaired two all-party commissions in Hackney and Brent about their constitutional structures. The unanimous decision in Hackney was to go for a DEM, and in Brent for the leader-cabinet model. Hackney’s choice arose because there was no chance of a stable single-party majority or coalition. Its key local conditions were bitter inter- and intra-party fighting, so a DEM was needed to enable effective governance. It needed one person to cut through the intense factionalism and paralysis. Brent rejected the DEM model because its parties were more evenly balanced and not as internally divided. The lesson from these two experiences was clear: local councils not central government know best their distinctive local factors. DEMs may be useful in some areas but not in others. But still central government persists in forcing referendums on 11 cities.

Who wants DEMs?

Between 2001 and 2011 there were 39 referendums on whether to have DEMs, in which the “no” vote won in 26, the “yes” vote in 13 - none in large cities. There was no evidence that English cities wanted either a referendum or a DEM. Public demand was minimal. Who wants DEMs? The early champion was Michael Heseltine who wanted local authorities to be run like businesses. When he was brought back to help shape Conservative policy he pushed his pet notion, which was taken up by the party and by Andrew Adonis. They have been travelling around the provinces carrying their technocratic message, with the blessing of the Prime Minister conveyed at a No. 10 reception.

Celebrity, leadership and one-person rule

Guy assumes DEMs would improve “the quality and everyday experience of democratic life”. His assertion is undermined by the current electoral campaigning for the Greater London mayor. It has degenerated into a clash of personality. The aspects of personality that are focussed on are not about the candidates’ personal styles of leadership but about personal aspects of their private lives. It is the politics of celebrity, not about competing programmes of principle and policy.

Guy assumes strong leadership is absent in leader-cabinet systems. But Joseph Chamberlain and Herbert Morrison were not directly-elected, nor were Shirley Porter and Ken Livingstone when he led the GLC, and yet they were acknowledged as leaders and were highly visible to their localities.

Guy advocates embodying the processes and machinery of local government in one figure. But the main argument against the DEM model is precisely its concentration of power in a single person. The assumption of the advocates of DEMs is there must be individual leadership rather than collective or team leadership. The advantage of collective leadership is it enables exploration of policy from different perspectives. Colleagues can consider possible impacts of policy in a variety of contexts, spotting pitfalls ahead and the consequences for different people and groups in their areas. A single person is unlikely to represent the diverse complexities of large urban areas better than collegial leadership.

A further drawback of DEMs is they enhance bureaucracy over democracy. The DEM cannot cover all the functions of the local authority. They have to rely on personal aides – unaccountable cronies – or else power slips to full-time chief officials. With the leader-cabinet system elected councillors can cover specific sets of services and ensure a democratic contribution is made to policy-making. Settling disputes in cabinets and committees enables coordination of policy, which can be achieved better horizontally than vertically by one-person from above. DEMs diminish the role of elected councils and relegate councillors to asking questions and scrutiny that have scant public impact.

What if the city is lumbered with a bad mayor?

Guy recognises a major objection to DEMs is the lack of a power of recall. However, this deficit is built into the model the government is pushing - if a DEM turns out bad or ineffective during the four-year term, there is no possibility for the removal of a DEM until the next election. Many states in the USA and Germany and other countries have a power of recall leading to a new election, either through a petition from the people or a council vote of no-confidence with a special majority. Advocates of community empowerment should give councils the right to a vote of no-confidence and enable the people to petition to submit the DEM to a new election.

The better way ahead

There are two main ways to break the suffocating centralism Guy so rightly deplores. The first is to reform central government. Its dominant culture that the silo departments of Whitehall know best needs to be transformed into one that respects local choice by local government. Here the current consultation, jointly sponsored by the Local Government Association and the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform select committee, about codifying the key principles of central-local-government relationships offers a practical step forward. The second essential change is reform of local taxation, which should not be treated as Guy’s “holy grail”. The basic principle is that local authorities should become less dependent for their income on their fix of central- government grant and draw most of their revenues from their own voters with taxes and charges whose rates they determine. These two approaches would revitalise “England’s stale political culture” brought on by central governments’ reduction of local government’s powers and curbing its discretion. The campaign for DEMs is a distraction from tackling the real defects in central-local government relationships.

Fabrice Muamba

FROM:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16209800

Fabrice Muamba Is Released From Hospital

• 5Comments

Fabrice Muamba shakes hands with Dr Andrew Deaner (left) and Dr Sam Mohiddin (right) from Barts Health NHS Trust

4:43pm UK, Monday April 16, 2012

Bolton Wanderers midfielder Fabrice Muamba, who suffered a cardiac arrest during an FA Cup match last month, has been released from hospital.

A spokesman for Barts Health NHS Trust said: "Barts Health can confirm that Fabrice Muamba has now been discharged following several weeks of treatment. All our staff wish him the very best in his ongoing recovery."

In a statement, Muamba said: "I am naturally very pleased to be discharged from hospital and would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to every single member of staff at The London Chest Hospital who have played a part in my care.

"Their dedication, professionalism and expertise is simply amazing and I will forever be in their debt. I also wish to say thank you to all the many well-wishers who have sent thousands of messages of support.

"Now I am out of hospital, I am looking forward to continuing my recovery and spending precious time with my family."

Medics rush to Fabrice Muamba's aid after the player collapses

Bolton Wanderers manager Owen Coyle said: "It is absolutely fantastic news that Fabrice has been discharged from hospital and everyone at the club is delighted.

"We would also like to add our thanks to the staff at The London Chest Hospital for their care and treatment of Fabrice, which has been outstanding.

"It is important that Fabrice and his family are now given time and space to be together, and we would ask the media to continue to respect their privacy."

Muamba collapsed on the pitch during the first half of Bolton's FA Cup quarter-final against Tottenham Hotspur at White Hart Lane, in London, on March 17.

The 23-year-old received treatment on the field before being rushed to hospital.

It later emerged he was effectively dead for 78 minutes while medics tried to restart his heart.

The former England Under-21 international was given 15 electric shocks before his heart started beating again - two on the pitch, one in the tunnel, and another 12 in the ambulance.

Two-weeks-ago, Dr Andrew Deaner, the cardiologist and Tottenham fan who leapt from his seat in the crowd and rushed on to the pitch to help the player, described Muamba's recovery as "miraculous".

However, it is still unknown whether Muamba will play professional football again.

More follows ...