By Simon Fletcher
It is not a foregone conclusion – in fact it’s going to be very tough indeed - but the Tories are now beatable after enjoying twelve months from the 2007 conference season being feted as the government in waiting. The reason is clear: because the underlying ideology of free market capitalism that guides them has been ripped up by the economic crisis. To stop them winning we have to build up real alliances across political divides in order to maximize the impact of the great majority of voters who have no interest or desire in seeing a return to Tory government.
Thinking Tories are quite open about their problem in private. What do you do as a party based on the unfettered free market when the international global financial system goes haywire? The sheer scale of global situation means only the massive role of the state can prevent a full-scale slump and protect the public from the worst. The biggest nationalizations in US history – indeed in the history of any of the liberal democracies – have had to be pushed through.
Confronted with this earthquake the Tories initially backed into a do-nothing comfort zone. But stung by the do-nothing accusation, the extent to which they would now do something would only make things worse. Polly Toynbee puts it perfectly – Cameron has sought refuge in Margaret Thatcher’s handbag.
The complete uselessness of the Tories’ response to the economic crisis has done them enormous harm in the polls but defeating them means mobilizing the great majority of those who do not want a Tory government. It is therefore time for a debate on the left and across the broadest possible progressive alliance on how to keep the Tories from winning and how to continue to take us forward.
There could not be a clearer example of why such alliances are necessary than what is happening in London. Progressive ideas have set the agenda in London for decades. Yet in the few short months since his victory – and building on the actions of right wing Tory councils like Hammersmith and Fulham - Boris Johnson is trying to drive back those improvements. He should not be allowed to do so.
Johnson has been throwing money away by abandoning higher charges on the most polluting cars and removing Kensington and Chelsea, the richest borough in Britain, from the congestion charge zone, whilst making millions of ordinary Londoners who use public transport pay for these policies with unnecessary fare increases. This month fares rose six per cent overall, with an eleven per cent rise in the price of a single bus journey. At the same time he has ended work on planned improvements in the transport system worth millions of pounds, including many that would benefit outer London. He intends to make Londoners pay over the odds for a vanity ‘new Routemaster’ scheme.
Under a Tory mayor big cuts to the budgets promoting London to tourists were imposed at exactly the time efforts to encourage visitors were vital. He is the most senior Tory opposing the new top rate of tax and stridently defending the bankers. Incompetent appointments have led to the loss of two deputy mayors, a deputy chief of staff and his adviser on the Olympics. The policy that fifty per cent of new homes should be cheap homes to rent or buy is being dumped and he is trying to remove the pressure for more socially rented housing. His cuts in real terms to the Met’s budget will harm policing in London.
The Mayor’s propaganda may be warm and fuzzy but the right wing reality of his administration, and the attempt to drive the politics of London backwards, is of interest beyond London. Ken Livingstone has initiated Progressive London as a forum that aims to unite the broad progressive majority in London against the attempt by the Tories and right wing media to carry through a cultural counter-revolution in London.
It holds its first conference on 24 January at the TUC. It is a cross-party event because Londoners who want to see the city continue to move forward and who reject City Hall’s right wing agenda are not limited to one party. It will bring together ministers and members of the Cabinet, London Members of Parliament and the London Assembly, local councillors, community representatives, artists and trade unionists from across the political spectrum. More than twenty sessions will cover many of the most important issues for Londoners, from the meaning of the economic crisis, to transport, the environment, good community relations, social justice and young people speaking out.
It will also examine the lessons of Barack Obama’s election victory; a session on the new media will hear from the leading websites holding Boris Johnson to account; there will be contributions from academics, economists and peace campaigners on the most important issues in the world today; and a Question Time-style session will address whether the forward march of Cameron has been halted.
No one claims unity will come easily: it requires discussion and debate. The aim is to unite where we agree, and where we don't to continue an open discussion. The trade unions, community groups, campaigns and the new media will be important forums where this discussion of progressive policy unfolds.
The objective is a comprehensive alternative to the right across the board in London, capable of winning arguments, waging campaigns and fighting for social justice.

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I don't like 'mayors' and never will - and am totally opposed to attempts to get one in Liverpool.
My mistake was trying to live the same life-style I had in France.
But it seems I can't afford a house in the South of England, transport costs so much and even thinking of going out for a meal etc. was bad for my bank balance.
So I moved back to France at the end of 2006 and breathed a sigh of relief.
I hate posting this as a complaint about "Broken Down Britain". But folks - IT IS.
I can't say how bitterly disappointed I am with what's happened in the UK over the last 11 years.
I actually pay less tax in France and have more social benefits than in the UK. I live in the west of France and it takes 2 hours by train to get to Paris - the comparable journey to London would take 3.5 hours.
The PBD in France is a lot less than for the UK.
Among other things, can someone tell me what major infrastructure project has been launched in the South and South West of England in the last 11 years? Probably not...
Look at the A303 - that was last improved in the early nineties - still not finished...
I hear the French government have approved a major project to improve the high-speed rail link between my closest city (Rennes) and Paris. So in 3 years time it will not take 2 hours to get to the capital but 1 hours and 20 minutes.
Can someone tell me what similar investment the UK Government is making in the South and South West of England to ease road congestion, make trains faster and more reliable?
I used to travel into London from Salisbury using the SW Train. In the early nineties the train would normally have 9 wagons and not be full until it got to Woking. I took the sale train last year - it was late - had 6 wagons - was full at Basingstoke - very expensive and only the same basic buffet trolley from a decade ago.
Sorry folks but if you've lived and worked in the South of England over the last decade it's difficult to perceive the slow but persistent degradation in living standards and quality of life.
I've been lucky enough to sample the lifestyle in a way that makes the change very obvious indeed.
His latest plan is amazingly irresponsible and shows a complete failure to understand how Police Community Support Teams Operate. Something you would think was easy enough in his position to know?
No for Mr Johnson with his pet project of wanting to replace bendy buses with the new Route-Master bus has come to one of the oddest plans ever been put forward by a politician. He wants to use PCSO as bus conductors! Not only has he failed to understand the costing of the new buses but now he thinks that the police support officers should instead of gathering information to help the police reduce crime be used to help people on an off buses and its assumed they would also check tickets?
Mr Johnson thinking is that they should be there also to keep order and tackle violent offenders. It is amazing that he has not thought this through before declaring it. PCSO's teams do a valuable job building a community relationship to help gather information that can lead to arrests and help reduce crime.
A team normally consists of 1 Sergeant, 1 Constable and 2 or 3 Community Support Officers. PCSO's are however not trained to deal with violent offenders and their powers are not the same as regular Police officers. The Police are in dismay at his plan and common sense seems to have vanished and let’s not forget the sheer costs involved to have PCSO's as bus conductors? Then there is also the issue of London community's as they would find themselves without a PCSO team as a result.
And of Transport as yet again Mr Johnson is not looking at reality for the need for real funding for London Transport instead he is jeopardising funding for PCSO’s and denying jobs for actual conductors if they were required. If this is Mr Johnson doing his best for London people then London needs a new Mayor. This will no doubt not be the last major gaff he makes but it certainly shows how poor thinking can harm London’s communities in many way and spiral council tax bills.
*Jerub shakes head in disbelief...*
Right then; first off I want to call horlocks on a few of the assertions above:
1. The "unfettered free market" you describe the current way the economy as being "run" (Ha!) is a nonsense; it does not and has never existed - look at this first portion of wikipedia's explanation of free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market):
A free market is a market that is free of government intervention and regulation, besides the minimal function of maintaining the legal system and protecting property rights, and is free of private force and fraud...
Lets stop there for a minute and consider if you can apply the above statement to the way our protectionist government, or any other in the western world for that matter behaves - is trade free? do government aparachniks state quotas to how things can be bough or sold? Are corporatist elements allowed to rent seek as a result (I'll give you an example; the Drax powerstation in Yorkshire is only allowed to operate at roughly 30% capacity because of the Climate Change myth and its inherent government controls in place, all supported by power companies who wish to inflate the price of their product above market value).
Moving on:
In a free market property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. By definition, buyers and sellers do not coerce each other, in the sense that they obtain each other's property without the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or fraud, nor is the coerced by a third party (such as by government via transfer payments).
So do we see third party involvement in our current system? Yes we do, and i'll list 2 very good examples:
a. The EU CAP: this policy is manifestly indicative of both third party manipulation of free trade; third world imports are capped to preserve industry in the EU, whilst the production of staples within the EU is subsidised which encourages over-production which leads to market dumping; the effect is to cut off sales of third world products within the EU and thwarts competitive pressures by effectively subsidising the markets; when you enter a supermarket to buy an apple you have essentially already paid for it via taxation within the EU.
b. The other example is slightly more insidious and is possibly one of the greatest tricks ever pulled; ownership of the money supply. The individuals responsible for printing money in our society are private individuals hired by our government; for every note they print they charge interest on it which eventually comes from the governments request of more money put into circulation (otherwise known as inflation).
Now perhaps I should point out something before I continue; the free market does not require money - it requires agreement between 2 individuals as to the value of exchange between 2 resources; 1 cows for a handfull of magic beans or a days labour for 30 shekels of silver etc...money itself is born of a need to rationalise the trade system - it has no intrinsic value except that which we give it (thus the British pound could be exchanged at your bank for a pound of gold in weight, but not anymore). When a third party controls the supply of money and sets it value they effectively place a claim on any voluntary agreement between 2 people, i.e. they take 10 shekels of silver from your days labour to pay for the supply of this valueless currency, thus enabling wealth to be concentrated into the hands of the few. The effect is to subvert commodities of real value (gold, labour etc.) with worthless paper, all because they can define its value. Government ordained of course.
Dont believe me? Check where the bank of England appears in the yellow pages; in the public sector pages or as a private institution?
*few*
Moving swiftly on...
In addition, in a free market, force is not used to prevent competition among buyers or among sellers (called free competition).
Nations within the EU that violate any of the trade policies, such as the CFP or CAP, are fined and penalised, and have you ever seen someone trade apples for pears? free competition is a myth.
Now enough about what wiki has to say, back to you:
The sheer scale of (the) global situation means only the massive role of the state can prevent a full-scale slump and protect the public from the worst. The biggest nationalizations in US history – indeed in the history of any of the liberal democracies – have had to be pushed through.
I am most interested in the last sentence myself; have had to be pushed through. If it is such a good idea for this "liberal democracy" to take control of these businesses, why didn't they do so when they were/are profitable? And who fights against this? As I recall MILLIONS of Americans protested against the banking and car bailouts and the main reason it was sunk (twice) until a much reduced amount of money was agreed for the bailouts was because there were a number of Senators up for election in the near-future.
Hmm...lets look closer to home:
Northern Rock:
Headquarters - Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne.
Employees: c.4500
MP responsible for Gosforth: Doug Henderson (Labour)
Majority: 7,023
Wow, that'd be a a shame for 4500 people to suddenly stop voting for Dougy eh? Lets hope they aren't married or have dependants of voting age either.
Bradford and Bingley:
Headquarters: Bingley, West Yorkshire, UK
Employees: 2862 (as of 2007)
MP responsible for Bingley: Philip Davies (Conservative)
Majority: 422 votes.
Horror! my thought experiment withers! Oh wait - Phillip Davies is the only Tory MP for Bradford, the rest are...Labour (http://www.bradford.gov.uk/asp/councillors/mps.asp).
HBOS:
Headquarters: Edinburgh, Scotland, UK (Halifax brand: my home county, West Yorkshire, England)
Employees: 72,000
MP responsible for Edinburgh: could find precise one, but 4/5 are labour (with one Lib Dem). Leeds makeup is also 4/5 Labour MP's.
What are the odds that the biggest names in the banking crisis would also have Labour representation in their headquart areas? Especially with those marginals.
Yeah, you guys had the public interests at heart...
There is no social justice in throwing money at schools and teachers and at the same time failing so many young people. There is no social justice in throwing money at hospitals and doctors and at the same time failing so many patients. It is just bad management. It is always the disadvantaged that pick up the bills. Again and again the left confuses inputs with outputs mainly because so many on the left draw their own income from the state. You don't achieve social justice by giving people like Fletcher silly salaries and building shiny new buildings. You can get more out of the tourism officials and policemen (and many other groups of public servants) for less, especially if they have had 8 unbroken years of increasing budgets. It is good management, especially now.
On social housing dumbo Fletcher can't work out that 50% of nothing is nothing. The 50% target was unachievable in practice before the credit crunch. Now it is a fantasy.
Fletcher's attempts to criticise Boris's transport policies are particularly venal. The six percent rise in London fares (RPI +1%) is precisely what Livingstone had signed up to until the elections came along. Livingstone thought that RPI (5% at the time) would win him some extra votes so he went back an overturned a settlement he had already with TfL and proposed to chop off the 1%. Boris just went back to the status quo ante on the basis that the alternative was higher council tax precepts or less transport investment. Livingstone's make believe transport projects, which Fletcher laments here, were never funded by anyone so it was prudent management to focus on the important stuff such as Crossrail.
We chucked the left out of a few London boroughs in 2006 and out of the London mayoralty in 2008. It won't be 2010 until Brown goes as he is not a brave enough man to go earlier. We don't have to imagine how awful the left are in power. We are living it right now.
More generally, I note the complete absence to date of any introspection or analysis of the recession (or "economic downturn" if you are in denial). How can it be that after 11 years of this government unemployment is rocketing? Why is the recesssion forecast by all save the government to be longer and deeper in the UK?
But I can see that Ken Livingstone's attempt to revive his political fortunes and the BBC's inability to maintain the link with David Cameron's house during the Andrew Marr show are far more important. Attack is, after all, the best form of defence, and defence of our economic position is not easy.
Ranting Penguin wrote: "REcent Polls on the Evening STandard site were suggesting that a huge majority think that Boris has been doing a very good job indeed. All the lefty twaddle to the contrary just makes the media concerned look partisan and daft. But it's no great surprise from an adminstration headed by a bloke who claimed "no more spin" and spends a BILLION quid a year on spin."
No one is spending a billion quid a year on spin. Most of the London expenditure that gets lumped in with 'spin' is public information – information on ticketing, details of which tube lines are open or closed at different times, bus and tube route information etc.
However there is a great deal of spin around under the new Tory regime: launching a strategy document on equalities but under-funding by half a commitment to rape crisis centres; launching a strategy on climate change whilst cancelling the £25 charge on gas guzzlers and ending opposition to an energy-wasting desalination plant; claiming to have been converted to the green agenda whilst proposing a new airport in the Thames Estuary; claiming to be the cyclists' friend but abolishing the western extension of the congestion charge, reducing funding for cycle routes and letting motorbikes into bus lanes, see more here http://www.lcc.org.uk/ ; claiming to be tackling the housing crisis but not producing a single serious policy to deal with the changed economic situation, and actually undermining efforts to get more social-rented homes; claiming to be concerned about the impact of the recession but spending the whole of the autumn not producing any measures to address it, whilst opposing the new top rate of tax, slashing funding for tourism promotion, and defending the worst of the bankers; claiming that Londoners will get 'more bang for their buck' but cutting off income streams by halving the size of the congestion charge zone and cancelling the gas guzzler charge; again, claiming "more bang for Londoners' buck" but increasing their fares six per cent overall and higher on the buses, whilst actually cancelling work on future projects like extensions of the DLR and the Croydon Tramlink; claiming to be for the police but cutting their budget in real terms; claiming to have made grass-roots sport a priority in the run-up to 2012 but producing no evidence that anything concrete is really being done.
The divergence between the spin and the reality is one of the most striking features of the Tory agenda in London.
The good work Ken had done, especially in the area of transport, is being undone by Boris.
All accross the country it is plain to see that Conservative administration's cut public services and and undo the good work done by Labour.
It strikes me that you guys just don't get the internet thing. You need to get to the point pretty fucking quickly and resist your urge to lecture us.
That way leads to ridicule...
Obviously a Hoon like you Simon wouldnt recognise excellence when you see it.
You have spent too much time with Red Ken obviously.
When are the 'common sense' people going to be represented..engineers, technologists, business people (who employ the vast majority of people in this country), manufacturers who 'add value' and generate TRUE WEALTH who pay for this academic ramblings. Please please get in the real world !!!
While not being a wholehearted fan he is without doubt a vast improvement on the old regime which was corrupt, wasteful and politically partisan in its treatment of Londoners.
I'm happy that you/Labour will not learn any lessons from the loss of the London Mayoralty and so expect to see the back of you in short order.
'Jack Stone: Your endless negativity while purporting to be a Conservative has nearly reached the end of the road. Either present yourself honestly or stop commenting. I will ban you if neither happens.'
Posted by: Tim Montgomerie | January 10, 2009 at 19:05
Poor little fool/
The British left cannot grow intellectually until it accepts objective facts such as Boris's success. The British left would become stronger in general if it were more honest and genuinely ran itself based on strong ethics rather than doing whatever it takes including slander, libel, and outright lying to get what it wants.
Racism, sexism, and homophobia are the most important issues tied to New Labour, but now it's time to say well done and instead of having these three issues run the country we need running the country properly in a decent way to be the main issues of government.
Labour needs to do a lot of hard out of the box thinking about its future. Good luck with the site.
Now I'd like to congratulate Labourlist on its forthcoming launch and wish you the best of luck with the site.
I may not agree with much that Labour supporters say but I do believe that political discussion is exceptionally valuable in all its forms.
As such I hope this website helps bring debates forward and encourages people into the political arena, whatever their ideological colours.
....Can I vote myself out of the government's control yet?
Er, no.
We don't live under free market capitalism. We live under a combination of Corporatism, state capitalism, and socialism.
We. Do. Not. Have. Free. Markets.