SIR ALAN AS LABOUR CANDIDATE FOR LONDON MAYOR?
Alarm bells should start ringing when Andrew Gilligan’s name appears on a story related to the London mayor.
Today’s London Standard announces that right wing figures in the Labour Party have approached Sir Alan Sugar. As Gilligan tells it:
“SIR Alan Sugar has been approached to be Labour’s candidate for London Mayor in an attempt to stop Ken Livingstone standing again. The multi-millionaire star of reality TV show The Apprentice is being lined up by senior party figures as a credible runner against Boris Johnson.
The Standard has learned that Ken Clark, Labour’s London director, has telephoned Sir Alan for what Labour sources said was an “exploratory conversation” about him standing. Ken Clark described the application process,” said one source. “The conversation was brief and pleasant.”
“Sir Alan did not commit himself. However, he is considered by some in the Labour Party to be the only potential candidate in the field so far with the combination of experience and name recognition to take on the Tory Mayor and prevent another election attempt by Mr Livingstone. This week the former mayor vowed to stand against Mr Johnson and referred to himself as “the Labour candidate”.”
But the Labour right wing must be desperate. I am informed by a Labour Party insider that Sir Alan Sugar endorsed Boris Johnson in the last week of the mayoral election last year. (Unfortunately the story did not appear on-line, but only in print in the London paper)
It is also worth recalling that during the 1999/2000 selection Sugar was used by the Labour right to give the message that Ken would be bad for businesses in London, as part of the pro-Frank Dobson/Stop Ken campaign.
Sir Alan’s judgement needs to be questioned given his backing of the hapless Frank Dobson, and that he actually endorsed Boris the clown last year.
There is clearly a concerted effort on behalf of some in the Labour party to stop Ken at any price, and they are obviously briefing Andrew Gilligan, who is a pro-Boris Tory. What is at stake is not just the London mayorality (important though that is), but I suspect there is also a certain amount of positioning going on for the battle for the Labour Party should the next general election be lost.
It is crucial for the left to defend Ken Livingstone as the London mayoral candidate.
Picture credit: http://www.virginmedia.com/images/alan-sugar-2-g.jpg
Hmm. At what point did Livingstone become “the London (Labour) mayoral candidate” for the next election? And what is left wing about Livingstone?
Comment by HardLeft — 27 February, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Re comment 1, he has declared he would like to be the candidate and is by far the most progressive we are going to get - Galloway has quite rightly already said no left csndidate should run against him next time.
Comment by richard irons — 27 February, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
is Alan Sugar to the left of Ken?
Should he expect support from the Green Party and those on the left outside Labour?
Comment by Derek Wall — 27 February, 2009 @ 3:34 pm
No and No Derek!
That was an easy one. Shows how far Labour have gone to the right that they are even considering Siralan (or he is considering them)
Comment by Green Socialist — 27 February, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
Is Cameron to the left of Ken? In what way are things any different under Boris e.g. another police loving, high fares imposing business friendly Mayor?
And the poverty of ‘the most progressive we are going to get’. A bit of backbone, comrade? Rancid as the Labour Party may be, I’d had thought you would at least consider people like John McDonnell, who resigned as deputy Leader of the GLC in opposition to Livingstone caving in on the rates rebellion.
Comment by HardLeft — 27 February, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
To try and cut off another sectarian bunfight about the merits of John McDonnell, I should say that I would be very surprised if he was interested in running. The Mayor/GLA set up is qualitatively very different from the GLC, not to mention the fact that John (unlike Ken or Alan Sugar) is a sitting MP and hopefully will be after the next election too.
Comment by Rory — 27 February, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
Rory
There has been no “sectarian bunfight” about JOhn McDonnell.
We had a frank exchange of views about different political perspectives. If socialists cannot make different tactical and strategic assessments without the debate being called a “sectarian bunfight” then there is no hope for any of us.
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 February, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
It’s funny how us left critics are always the ’sectarians’ (and our betters try and ‘cut us off’ in a no doubt inclusive and collegiate manner).
Of course we all should have supported the SDP to stop Thatcher indeed never had left the Liberals and so stopped the Tory governments of the 20th century.
Or we may just correct - Livingstone is right wing, not left wing. Just look at him about Jean Charles de Menezes - made my stomach turn
Comment by HardLeft — 27 February, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
Well I thought the motivation was sectarian but nonetheless, in the interests of left unity, please replace “sectarian bunfight” in my previous posting with “frank exchange of views”.
Comment by Rory — 27 February, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
HardLeft, you are being sectarian against Livingstone. You are not being a “left critic” but an “infantile” one.
The left should unite around Livingstone as the progressive mayoral candidate in 2012.
Comment by little black sister — 27 February, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
How do you like the Labour Party? Without Sugar please.
It’s more than 20 years since I left the labour Party and don’t know why I feel so worked up about such an entirely predictable scenario.
I think whether Ken L is left wing or right wing is much too simplistic a question. He is well to the left on some questions, quite left on others - a bit right wing on occasional matters.
A lot of the most positive aspects of London life and culture today, including positive attitudes on racism, sexism, homophobia, I would attribute to the long-term impact of the very progressive GLC regime presided over by Ken in the 80s.
Comment by David Rosenberg — 27 February, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
#11 How do you like the Labour Party? Without Sugar please.
boom boom!
Comment by Andy Newman — 27 February, 2009 @ 5:51 pm
well I would probably go for John McDonnell but hey is the labour leadership going to push a left candidate, no they are going to try to get rid of Ken with someone solidly to the right.
Comment by Derek Wall — 27 February, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
@little black sister. I don’t visit here often but the only time I see you commentate is as a Livingstone cheerleader- and always without any depth.
It’s perfectly arguable to say Livingstone should be supported; it would be wrong to stand someone further Left - arguable, but IMHO that’s very wrong.
What isn’t right though is to just raise a witless slur of ’sectarian’ or ‘infantile’ against anyone who says, hang on a minute, let’s think about this, or as Andy writes, “If socialists cannot make different tactical and strategic assessments without the debate being called a “sectarian bunfight” then there is no hope for any of us.”
Just what is ’sectarian’ or ‘infantile’ about either demanding a discussion about your hero’s (employer’s?) record or whether he should be the Labour candidate.
You remind me of those types who would have said things like ‘well if Comrade Stalin says X, then X must be true, who are you to argue with the great comrade, you sectarian?’
@Rosenburg. I think you way, way overestimate the role of the Livingstone’s GLC, a London only council for 5 years. Formal progressive attitudes to e.g. women owe more to e.g. Equal Opportunities Act 1976, women joining the workforce, more single women and mothers etc etc. It has a long way to go but people probably are less sexist now than 25 years ago but Ken didn’t do that, I’d imagine attitudes have similarly evolved in, say, the USA despite right wing governments there.
Comment by HardLeft — 27 February, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
There is no Labour candidate for Mayor of London in 2012.
There isn’t even likely to be a process for selecting a candidate until after the London Borough elections in May 2010.
The key debate, in the absence of a sitting candidate, is to have an open selection in all the affiliates as well as in the Labour Party itself. That is ballots of the members, not obscure regional committees making decisions on their behalf.
Comment by Alan Ji — 27 February, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Must agree with hardleft on the overestimation of the influence of either the Livingstone GLC or his two terms as Mayor. It is now nearly thirty years since he carried out his coup the day after the Labour Party won the elections for the GLC in 1981. He did what he was to do to get the nomination as MP for Brent. He had manouvered behind the scenes with his Trotskyist Socialist Action members to pack and take over committees which then appointed his nominated stooges to well paid jobs.
Yes of course advances have been made in all aspects of our lives but Livingstone and his various committees had nothing to do with them. Had Livingstone not been so confrontational with Thatcher there was no need for the GLC to have been abolished, he walked into a fight he simply could not win.
His eight years as Mayor achieved nothing of any real depth and did more than the BNP to create a base for that party than it could ever have achieved on its own. What exactly is left wing about Livingstone then or now? If he is selected as candidate he is guaranteed to lose, there is absolutely no question about that.
But the question no one has asked is why we need a Mayor atall. London functioned for a long time without one with basically all of the services that we have now. All that happened was that another layer of government was imposed which was nothing more than a private fiefdom and the Greater London Development Agency became Ken’s private bank.
It seems he had Lee Jasper on his radio programme the other night claiming how he had been exonerated over the missing three million quid. If that is the case Lee can you tell us where it all went? I would suspect that Little Black Sister is a bit pissed off that the piggy bank has been withdrawn. What exactly were Londoners doing funding the European Black Womens Business Network? What Livingstone was doing towards the end was taking the piss out of white Londoners and he was so arrogant and surrounded by courtiers and sycophants that he couldn’t see it.
Politically London is now more polarised on racial lines than ever. Labour support came down to the left and ethnic minorities with the black press, largely funded by GLA and Labour councils advertising, running an hysterical campaign with claims that Boris was going to bring in ghettoes for ethnic minorities prior to deporting them all.
Mr Newman, could I remind you of the elephant in the living room situation that is developing in regard to the BNP. Everyone here is concerned with trivialities while the most successful party of the far right that we have ever seen goes from strength to strength. If only a fraction of the effort that is put into some of the campaigns were to be redirected towards the one against the BNP they could be rolled back.
The campaign is under way but more people are needed as is set out by the editor of Searchlight Nick Lowles in his latest blog on www.hopenothate.org.uk. If people are really concerned about not being sectarian then show it. Everybody is welcome and your views are of no concern except that you are prepared to work. The alternative is BNP MEPs in June and if that happens they are permanent part of the political scene. Forget about Livingstone, he is a has been, there is a far greater danger than Boris Johnson lurking out there.
Comment by terryfitz — 28 February, 2009 @ 8:53 am
#2 Richard ‘Galloway has said quite rightly that no left wing candidate should run against him ( Ken L) next time’
Who says ? I don’t think that GG has made any such quote and even if he had it would be very foolish.
a) KL has already demonstrated too well of how he is unfit for purpose to be a ‘left’ candidate having sucked up to: Brown, New Labour, the police, TFL management and city developers and privatetisers ( which probably cost him the election last time).
b) It’s over three years to go and there’s a good chance that a good truly ‘left’
candidate could yet emerge.
At this stage it could be GG, but no consultation in Respect has even begun.
Comment by Halshall — 28 February, 2009 @ 8:55 am
Which Respect would this be then Halshall? The one run by the SWP which has just dumped Rees and German from the CC for the fiasco or the one run by the Bangladeshi businessmen and village elders in Tower Hamlets? This is all a bit reminiscent of Hitler ordering around non existent divisions when the Red Army was at the gates of Berlin.
Galloway could be available, he is going to get his arse kicked by Jim Fitzpatrick in Poplar and Canning Town come the election, but for which party or will he run as an independent? All he is going to do is split the anti Tory vote and guarantee Boris another four years.
Comment by terryfitz — 28 February, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Just re Galloway, he definitely did state that no-one on the left should challenge Ken in 2012. It was during a session at the Progressive London conference, not sure Jean Lambert who was on the same panel as them quite agreed!
Comment by phil — 28 February, 2009 @ 9:30 am
terryfitz shows his ignorance. It may be flattering for “Trotskyist Socialist Action members” to be labelled as Livingstone’s allies levering him into power back in 1981, but actually London Labour Briefing, led by a group then called the Chartist Minority Tendency, and the then Matgamna grouplet called Socialist Organiser, had a lot more to do with it, if you want to pin it on Trotskyist influence.
A large section of Socialist Action, including latter-day Livingstone sycophant John Ross, were actually opposed to getting involved in routine work in the Labour Party at that time.
In fact Livingstone’s rise had more to do with a general tide of revolt in the Labour Party and shift to the left, than Trotskyist activity.
Comment by Prinkipo Exile — 28 February, 2009 @ 10:20 am
“It’s over three years to go and there’s a good chance that a good truly ‘left’
candidate could yet emerge.”
There’s also a strong likelihood that this government will no longer exist by then, and all the current shower of Brownite scumbags will be well fucked in a defeated and disintegrating party.
Comment by ID — 28 February, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
# 19 Phil
I’ve seen no confirmation of this qoute from GG, but as I said previously if he did then it would be very foolish; particularly at this early juncture when no discussion let alone decision has yet taken place in Respect.
Besides who knows what developments may unfold politically in the next three years ?
#21 ID
Yes perhaps the only very likely thing we can predict is that there will be probably a Tory government well in the saddle by then, although even then there is still some possibility of a hung parliament.
However isn’t that only more relevant to the fact that KL in tying himself so closely to the fate of New Labour will have cooked his own goose ? (and for the second time!)
Comment by Halshall — 28 February, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
Prinkipooexile,
Stay in Turkey, if you go to Mexico you might get something in you head that will make it ache. I’m only singing from a song!
Comment by terryfitz — 28 February, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
#18 terryfitz
What makes you think that the LP will select KL to stand again anyway ?
Comment by Halshall — 28 February, 2009 @ 6:33 pm
Halshall,
Go back to sleep son, God’s own country are drawing three all with “an bearla slaght” which is far more important than your demented Trot rantings!
Comment by terryfitz — 28 February, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Ireland won by one point but, as Roy of the Rovers said, “It’s winning that’s important”. Or did he say “It’s goals that win matches”? And what did happen to Melchester Rovers?
Comment by terryfitz — 28 February, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Alan Sugar represents a largely discredited brand, which had one good product in the 1980s but nothing much worth having since. I think I’m beginning to see the rationale behind this proposal…
Comment by Francis King — 28 February, 2009 @ 9:02 pm