KEN LIVINGSTONE HIS POLITICS & THE SECRET STATE

INTRODUCTION

For more than 35 years, ever since he mounted a successful coup to become Leader of the Greater London Council in 1981, the eternally preening nasally whining figure of Livingstone has fascinated the ‘Last Century Left’ and their media outlets like the Guardian, defining for many both the nature, and limits, of modern Leftism. In particular, his shameless promotion at the GLC of ‘identity politics’ at the expense of universalist transformatory projects (akin to the planting of dragon’s teeth) has had untold adverse consequences on political discourse, and contributed in great measure to creating political space for the very fascist BNP Livingstone pereniially presents himself at the forefront of opposition to.

While never fit to be spoken of in the same breath as Tony Benn (for example) his stint as London Mayor plus an occasional spat with various New Labour leaders has ensured Livingstone’s continuance in the public eye. Fair enough–but what is amazing is that this fundamentally pro-capitalist reactionary spiv should still be seen as ‘radical’, even after he mired the London Mayoralty in a cesspit of scandal involving the usual suspects, including Lee Jasper, another shameless freeloader. There could hardly be better testimony to the bankruptcy and political corruption at the heart of New (Generation) Labour than him being chosen as Labour’s London Mayoral candidate in 2012. Save, perhaps, that the choice was either him or the ultra-reactionary characterless apparatchik Oona King, but we digress.. We should never forget there was a moment (if only that) when Livingstone seemed a genuine threat to the status quo. The article below, dating from Notes From the Borderland issue 3 2000 p.55-58, has, we contend, stood the test of time in getting to the heart of this creep’s politics–and along the way, with forensic logic, dissected the self-serving and inconsistent platitudes which Livingstone spews forth with practised ease. Needless to say (but we will), the prediction below that he would call upon cops to crush demonstrators came true–and we did point it out at the time [see editorial for issue 4 elsewhere on this site]. For a later assessment of Livingstone’s career by way of reviewing his biography, see Paul Stott’s article in NFB issue 11 p.71-75

LIVINGSTONE, HIS POLITICS & THE SECRET STATE
by Harry Ainsworth

Media darling Left-wing MP Ken Livingstone was sworn in as London mayor 8/5/2000. after an election campaign many see as a watershed in British domestic politics. In essence, the Ken4London campaign represents the ultimate personalisation of politics. It is perhaps appropriate that a vainglorious chameleon like Turn-Again should successfully adapt US machine style politics to the UK. Ken’s ‘cheeky chappie’ image is more important than real issues and the authentic problems of everyday people. Livingstone and his politics are not an antidote to the Blair phenomenon but another variant of the genus.

LIVINGSTONE’S COALITION

Turn-Again’s coalition includes Tories Liberal Democrats (defeated mayoral candidates Norris and Kramer) and Greens. Livingstone garnered Green Party support by unattributably promising the deputy mayor position to Europhiliac candidate Darren Johnson and hypocritically suggesting voters support Greens in the Assembly elections. Also on board were politically correct groupies and capitalists. Turn-Again’s first appointments were Lee Jasper of the National Assembly Against Racism and Kumar Murshid, Tower Hamlets Labour councillor. Jasper, veteran of the Labour Party Black Section is a key figure. According to The Guardian 9-5-2000, he is “very much in demand from the establishment”, serving on Jack Straw’s (Home Secretary) race relations forum, Met Police-Community Consultative Group and previously on the lay advisory panel to John Grieve’s Racial & Violent Crime Task Force. C024 [1]. It is testament to Livingstone’s wheeler-dealer opportunism that he has drawn together many different strands – but it has nothing to do with socialist politics.

THE EGO HAS LANDED

Using a slick highly polished approach, Turn-About has created an electorally popular coalition telling different and competing constituencies only & exactly what they want to hear [2]. Much of this recalls Livingstone’s behaviour as Greater London Council leader. Even Turn-Again’s erstwhile socialism was borrowed from veteran Trotskyant and former Lambeth Council Leader Ted Knight. Knight explains “it was useful for Ken to have somebody arguing with him who had very clearly defined views on matters of Labour Party and socialist policies” and that “he was able to win wider support and prepared to seek looser alliances than I would have” [3].

IRELAND & MI5

Livingstone interests NFB partly because he is an icon for many on the Left, who desperately want him to succeed, inspired by memories of what they imagine happened when he led the Greater London Council 1981-85. Many also idolise Turn-Again because he has in the past gone further than any mainstream Labour Left politician in raising two related thorns in the side of the British ruling class, Ireland and MI5. On closer examination, it transpires that not only was Livingstone never as astute on these issues as it appeared, but weaknesses and lacunae present then have persisted and look likely to affect his current and future coalition-building strategies. A strong claim, but first some background facts.

In July 1981, when the H-Block hunger strike in the Maze prison by Republican prisoners was at its height, Turn-Around supported the prisoners and called for British troop withdrawal [4]. Soon after Livingstone denied the IRA were criminals and called for them to be understood [5]. Subsequently, Turn-Again met Sinn Fein leaders, and visited Belfast. All these things earned great media hostility and broad Leftist sympathy.

After GLC abolition in 1985, Livingstone entered the parliamentary snake-pit with a controversial and telling maiden speech on 9th July 1987. He dealt with dirty tricks in Ireland, specifically the Wallace/Holroyd allegations, and into 1988 asked detailed questions about British Army psy-ops in Ireland and related matters Public schoolboy journalist Paul Foot thinks Turn-Around the best thing since sliced bread for embarking “on a long Parliamentary campaign to get to the root of the Wallace /Holroyd stories” [6]. At this stage, however, Livingstone could only have been pursuing the matter for two and a half years at most. That may seem long to Foot, but isn’t really–perhaps the chancer is still reviewing his files on the Hanratty case, to work out how he got it so wrong, so we’ll let it pass. Both Livingstone (unacknowledged) and Foot himself (for the Wallace book) cribbed much information from Lobster magazine [7], as have other plagiarists (such as John Pilger on the British American Project) since. While editor Robin Ramsay is mentioned by Foot two or three times [8] no casual reader would realise the depth of his debt.

In Turn-Around’s constituency party (Brent East) he had a good parliamentary researcher, (teacher) Neil Grant, especially well informed on Ireland, thus providing regular speech material. That material dried up when Grant landed a research job at BBC Panorama. While Grant may have got the job on his undoubted merits, it is feasible that it suited the secret state to choke Livingstone’s local source of fresh questions. At this stage, between 1981 and 1989-90, Turn-About was an undoubted irritant to the spooks on the question of Ireland. So they may have sorted it.

In The Independent 21/5/99. Livingstone returned to the subjects of Ireland. MI5 and dirty tricks. Robin Ramsay, with forensic thoroughness, dissected this piece showing how hazy is Turn-Again’s recollection of even his own central allegations [9]. The criticism of Livingstone here is precisely because his interest in Ireland was based on opportunist grand-standing, not personal conviction and contemporary thirst for knowledge, he has never felt the need to brush up such knowledge. Fair enough, for a typical hack parliamentarian—but not for someone even now believed by the naive to be ‘sound’ on Ireland, Ireland was not a living issue, just another component in Tum-About’s carefully crafted portmanteau of concerns. Livingstone raised no fresh evidence on British secret state activities there–why should he? Ireland was a prop, not a crusade. His happily regurgitating barely-understood information concerning events in primarily the 1970’s is, as we shall see, of more than historical relevance.

There were always two strands to Turn-Again’s Irish policy. Firstly, commitment to dialogue with militant Irish Republicans, such as the IRA. Secondly, a commitment to withdraw British troops. While the second may still be anathema to the British Establishment (although many Loyalists would disagree!), from the moment in late 1990 when Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Brooke was contacted by John Deverell, MI5 Intelligence Chief in Northern Ireland, and informed about a channel of communication to the Republican leadership, dialogue was on the agenda [10]. Certainly, there had been a back-channel between the British state & the IRA. involving Michael Oatley of MI6, but this was rather more. As we now know, one result of this dialogue (to date) has been a downgrading by Sinn Fein of the demand troops be withdrawn in practical terms [11]. Dialogue between the British state and IRA, while it may have seemed a vindication of Livingstone’s earlier call, bypassed him and undoubtedly (along with his isolation in the Parliamentary Labour Party) led to him seeming less of a threat both to his own leadership and the spooks. Hence, in part, reinvention as ‘cuddly Ken’.

TURN-ABOUT AS MI5 VICTIM

If MI5 decide certain targets are no longer important, they don’t routinely inform them, as ongoing paranoia is opportunity, not problem, for spooks. In 1997 (ex?) MI5 operative David Shayler, who, as readers will be aware, has not replied to serious questions raised in our last issue, suggested MI5 handed a file on Livingstone to Blair, probably true, despite the source [12]. Turn-Again responded he “would be amazed” not to be on an MI5 list but it didn’t really matter because MI5 are not just “appalling, right-wing and paranoid” but “a pretty derisory bunch and a complete waste of money” [13]. Taken at face value, it seems he wasn’t worried. Not the impression Turn-Around had always given. You should, however, keep in mind his description of MI5.

One of Livingstone’s most unattractive and irresponsible traits over the years has been the tendency to accuse MI5 of targetting him when in a political fix of a decidedly mundane variety. Too often, Turn-About uses such tactics as a smokescreen to avoid investigation of his reptilian activities or to defend antediluvian friends. The prime example is when the worm finally turned and members of the Workers Revolutionary Party (WRP) threw out close Livingstone buddy and sexual predator Gerry Healy. After Healy’s death, Turn-Again wrote a fulsome introduction to a biography of him by two acoloytes, declaring it “a privilege to have worked with Gerry Healy”. Furthermore, Livingstone declared he had “never changed in my belief that the split in the WRP during 1985 was the work of MI5 agents” [14]. Five years later, however, Turn-Around was singing a different tune, fatuously distancing himself from Healy by irrelevantly claiming “I never met the man till I was 36 years old and I am far too independent-minded ever to submit myself to Marxist discipline” [15]. Needless to say, Livingstone never advanced any proof for his claims about the 1985 split.

Another example of the same tactic was shown in the 1992 General Election. Turn Again’s inflated ego was dented by Leftist sect the Communist Party of Great Britain having the temerity to stand against him in his local constituency. The CPGB argued they stood candidate Anne Murphy against “£750 a week Sun columnist” Livingstone to expose his posturing, particularly on Ireland [16]. How did the heroic Turn-About respond? “BBC TV’s Newsroom South East screened Livingstone’s absurd display of paranoia when he accused Communist Party members of being MI5 agents!”. How seriously can we take comment from Turn-Around on this subject after such a preposterous allegation? Livingstone using MI5 as a sensational diverting device may have been good sound-byte politics for him, but to those genuinely under the cosh of MI5 and Special Branch without media access, these outbursts are worse than useless.

None of this is to deny that the Labour Party establishment used every trick in the book to prevent Turn-Again winning the mayoral nomination. Nor is it to deny that over the years Livingstone’s affairs have been subject to far more media scrutiny than your average rich bastard MP. It is also reasonable to surmise it would fit a spook agenda to keep this little pot boiling. However, even on the basis of public domain information, Turn-About has been consistently deceitful. Thus, in 1994 when the media picked up on his nimble accounting footwork to evade tax, he responded by claiming this was acceptable because 1993 income levels were “not likely to be repeated” [17]. Livingstone’s response for the next two years to such media scrutiny was to avoid filing accounts at all [18]. Hardly wise, nor something Turn-Around could blame others (even MI5) for. Yet when the subject of his financial evasiveness was again (predictably) raised in March 2000 prior to the mayoral election, Livingstone whined about “dirty tricks” and (again) tried the line that he was now going to change his entry in the Register of Member’s Interests “because my earnings from speaking and writing had become more regular”, as though this were something new [19]. Turn-About here is a typically shifty bourgeois politician. No surprise then.

DEAR TONY?

Livingstone’s ‘Open Letter’ of 29/1/00 promised to support the current government and not use the mayoral office to attack the ruling order. Turn-About will find it far easier to do the latter than the former. Blaming the government if (when) things go wrong will be too great a temptation for this huckster. Whatever the future of Livingstone’s one pseudo-radical commitment, opposition to privatisation of London Underground, the source and nature of his policy idea–a public-private partnership in New York, is telling. It should not be forgotten that Turn-Again despicably supported the NATO bombings of Kosovo and avidly supports the Euro and concomitant Imperial European superstate. Livingstone craves inward investment and a dynamic City of London. No doubt strengthening Metropolitan Police resolve following May Day 2000 was an early item on Ken’s agenda something the Labour Cabinet will be pleased to support [20].

MI54KEN—KEN4MI5?

At a meeting in Brixton called by the National Assembly Against Racism during the April 1999 nail-bombings, Turn-Around revealed his contemporary views on both Ireland and the security services. We print these opinions in full below:

“We want the same weight that was used by the police against the IRA to be used to smash the racists of Combat 18 and other such organisations.That means the powers to intern and the powers to ban organisations.The difference with the extreme right is that they do not enjoy the support of 15 per cent of the population at the ballot box so measures such as internment could be very effective if used against them.” [reported New Nation 3/5/99]

In an Independent article at the same time. Livingstone argued “we should ban the BNP’ and “defeat them using all the powers of the state and with the backing of local communities” [21]. Banning, and “all the powers of the state” ineluctably includes both MI5 and Special Branch.

INTERNING AFFAIRS

What about internment, which Turn-Again supports? One academic summarised the view accepted by the vast majority of observers and activists regarding its use in Northern Ireland. “The introduction of internment instantaneously united all shades of Catholic opinion against the authorities. Far from stemming the violence, internment provided PIRA with an enormous propaganda victory which boosted recruitment. In the four months preceding internment there had been a combined total of eight civilian and military deaths. The four months after the introduction of internment saw the deaths of 30 soldiers, 11 RUC officers and 73 civilians” [22].

Here, we see the significance of Livingstone’s ignorance of Irish affairs. Because Turn-Around knows (or remembers—same difference) nothing about the effects of 1970s internment he is prepared to risk lives by making BNP members martyrs. Can you imagine the political capital Nick Griffin, new BNP leader (or deputy Sharon Edwards), would make out of being interned? Frightening. It is fundamen tally disturbing that a politician affecting to be au fait with British state duplicity in Ireland, up to and including arranging assassinations (via Brian Nelson and independently) should for one moment contemplate using such tactics here. Especially by the same MI5 dismissed by Livingstone in 1997 as “appalling right-wing and paranoid”.

PLAYING THE NUMBERS GAME

Caricaturing the BNP as mindless hooligans, “no more than a racist criminal conspiracy” [23] also misses the point. In a recent Bexley council election the BNP got over 20% of the vote and the BNP’s new strategy in Tipton, West Midlands, led to a 23.7% vote, 50% up on previously [24]. Turn-Again’s arbitrary and irresponsible ‘cut-off figure of 15% is stupid. Livingstone’s shallow understanding (or lack of) internment is revealing. It did work in the 1950s, precisely because the IRA did not have a sufficient base. Like it or not however (and we don’t) the BNP’s base in certain areas is already too large to make such a measure feasible.

That Turn-About should pick on a numerical % of support as a threshold for state action is revealing. His is a form of politics whereby transient coalitions (majorities) are deftly constructed from week to week or poll to poll. Therefore anybody who has sizeable ‘clout’ is a player, whatever their beliefs. In addition to his (now surpassed) mathematical basis for excluding the BNP, Livingstone has another argument which (interestingly) he applies to the IRA and the BNP apply to themselves—they “believe they’re fighting for the freedom of their country and you’ve got to deal with them on that basis” [25]. It is not surprising Turn-Around’s theoretical arsenal lacks the capacity to oppose fascists in principle-he has none.

All this makes Livingstone’s call for state bans, surveillance, and use of “all the powers of the state” both dangerous and disturbing. The real as opposed to phony left know MI5 powers will always be used against the Left and new social movements as much (if not more) than fascists. It is deeply worrying that a political opportunist like Turn-About imports the imperialist terminology of the Irish War – banning TV broadcasts, proscribing organisations, internment—into London domestic politics. Whilst the immediate ploy was to gain ethnic votes, implementing such a policy would reinforce the state’s armoury and move the secret state’s agenda forward. Coupled with Livingstone’s Europhiliac tendencies, linking the superstate express to MI5 commuter special, the coming Utopia for Londoners is extended state surveillance and intervention. At the very least, the spooks will have noted his knee-jerk reaction to the nail-bombings and realise that should they desire further repressive legislation, setting in motion (or allowing to run) another David Copeland will produce a predictably compliant Turn-Around reaction. Useful for reference.

CAPITAL 4 KEN?

Given Livingstone’s recent well publicised statement global capitalism has killed more people than Hitler (true)–will he call for “all the powers of the state” to “defeat” multinational capitalist companies and finance capital? Thought not. It is unlikely capitalists will experience early morning sleep disturbance due to state raids. Instead, Turn-Again’s friends in the City, like his Cabinet member Judith Mayhew, leading light in the City of London Corporation and Livingstone’s link with City boardrooms, will be tucked up in bed safely, no doubt hungover from last night’s Ken4Capital dinner party. Indeed, Ms Mayhew and her friends we hear [26] “are very impressed with Ken” because “he understands the world has completely changed since his GLC days. He understands the needs of business: he needs us and we need him”. At the behest of the City, Turn-Around supports the creation of yet more skyscrapers, without demur. The stench of corruption is in the air [27], but will brave Darren Johnson oppose him? Thought not!

POLITICAL POLICING

Whilst Mayor Livingstone preens himself, scientifically rumpling his white safari-suit before returning to the political jungle and getting together with John Stevens, John Grieve, Alan Fry et al the rest of us have good reason to be wary. Turn-About’s Election Manifesto for London has several promises on law and order, not least of which is restoring policing numbers through recruiting 2000 more Met officers (p.9). Other pledges include : the creation of a “representative” police force to help achieve “the vision set out by Sir John Stevens, new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police” (p.9) ; strong support for “the Government’s initiative to set up new Crime and Disorder Partnerships throughout London” (p.11); and, interestingly, to “agree a plan with the Commissioner for increasing resources and investment in the latest anti-crime technology, particularly DNA testing and the new generation of CCTV cameras” (p.10). So you can rest assured if your image is captured on CCTV on a future London mobilisation – or even innocent shopping trip (autoreductionist or otherwise). The cameras have not only been updated by cheekie chappie’ but also possess his personal blessing. Ironically, John Stevens, given his experience investigating ‘shoot-to-kill’ allegations in Northern Ireland, will be less keen than Turn-Around to copy such tactics here.

POLICING POLITICS

Coalition-building for Livingstone requires policing of the political spectrum. Mayor Turn-Again selects favoured community or special interest ‘leaders’ whose key job is not to advise Ken (ever tried ‘advising’ a weather-vane?) but politically control their own patch and co-opt/contain dissidents. Just like old GLC days, grant applicators and pc apparatchiks are guaranteed expense accounts but grassroots human beings get nothing. Cronies like Jasper and Johnson, for example, become special constables respectively within black and Green circles.

WILL LIVINGSTONE NEUTRALISE THE LEFT?

There is, sadly, little variety of position held by the Left on Turn-About. This despite his utterly reactionary regional chauvinism, whereby he nasally whines about London (centre of ruling-class power) ‘subsidising’ the rest of the UK. The SWP liberals are spineless groupies, even picketing the surgery of one MP opposed to Livingstone in support of Turn-Again. Livingstone responded by describing the SWP as “sectarian and parasitic” stating he “totally oppose[d]” their front-campaigns [28]. Predictably, the gutless SWP still supported Turn-About when it mattered [29]. Anarchists such as Class War, Turn-Around will not incorporate so easily. Met Commissioner Sir John Stevens was so worried by a Movement Against the Monarchy demonstration he seriously considered making a “highly unusual” call to Jack Straw to ban it [30]. Presumably Livingstone agrees, given his support for the “vision set out by Sir John Stevens”. What of the CPGB, who stood against him in 1992? In April 1999 they were sceptical, hinting, indeed, that Turn-Again’s tendency was proto-fascist. 11 months later they too capitulated. Inasmuch as the organised political Left are creatures of the last century, and a dying breed, he’ll get little trouble from them.

CAN LIVINGSTONE NEUTRALISE THE GREENS & NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS?

Thankfully, this is a more open question. Take the Green Party first. Whatever deals may have been done with Darren Johnson and others on the electoral gravy train, recent changes in the Party Constitution to give some power back to activists might make a difference. Even if Turn-Again neutralises the Green Party, that organisation is not synonymous with the broader Green/anti-capitalist movement represented by strands as diverse as the J18 coalition and animal liberationists etc. If New Labour really want to undermine Livingstone, they could hold a future World Trade Summit (or even Bilderburg Group meeting) in London. After all, while Turn-About claims he would not invite the World Trade Organisation [31]—he couldn’t stop them or similar coming, especially if his corrupt City friends give them the nod.

Interviewed in The Face May 2000, Livingstone praised May Day 2K activities, but later back-tracked blaming “shabby journalism” & denied supporting riots [32]. Consider what might transpire if (hopefully when) a J18 type event happens during Turn-Again’s mayoralty Given his public pronouncements supporting the City of London and police operations things might get very tricky for him. Contradictory sound-bytes wouldn’t save the day. If & when Livingstone orders cops in NFB will report on it–and say we told you so.

CONCLUSION

No way are we saying Livingstone is a spook. However, he is a vain shallow creature, and there is a gravitational pull to his political methodology. Faced with mounting problems, resistance (and state-sponsored atrocities) Turn-Around might find it advantageous, and certainly unproblematic, to broker deals with anyone, including spooks and other state factions. He believes in nothing but will do anything for power. It won’t be over till the reptile swings on a political gibbet. Soon.

FOOTNOTES

1 Kumar Murshid’s major claim to fame is criticising the Duke of Edinburgh’s views on multiculturalism, not a difficult target.
2 John Carvel ‘Turn Again Livingstone’ Profile Books (1999) p.286 tells us “there was nothing especially novel or left wing about this policy mix”. How true.
3 Carvel op.cit. p.35. For an attack on Turn-About’s GLC record by a former ally, see ‘Livingstone’s legacy’ John Bloxam, London Labour Briefing August 1985.
4 Evening Standard 21/7/81
5 quoted in The Times 13/10/81
6 Paul Foot ‘Who Framed Colin Wallace?’, Pan Books (1990)p.388
7 see Lobster No 11 April 1986 on ‘covert operations in British politics 1974-78’, published 14 months before the speech.
8 A broadcast on MI5 by Radio Telefis Eireann March 1987 was another (acknowledged) source for both Livingstone & Foot–see Foot p.362
9 Lobster 38 Winter 1999 p.24
10 E Mallie & D McKittrick ‘The Fight For Peace'(1996) p. 102-5
11 Republican critics see this is a sell-out in principle, but that’s another article!
12 Mark Hollingsworth and Nick Fielding ‘Defending the Realm: MI5 and the Shayler Affair’. Andre Deutsch (1999) p.93, Carvel, op cit.. p.290
13 Hollingsworth & Fielding op cit. p.94
14 March 1994 Foreword (p vii) to ‘Gerry Healy—A Revolutionary Life’ by Corinna Lotz & Paul Feldman Rufus Books (1994). The 1985 WRP split will be analysed in the next NFB by Campbell MacGregor. For background information on Healy see New Statesman 6/6/86. Solidarity Journal Spring 1988 p.3-10.
15 Quoted in The Guardian 19/1/2000
16 Jack Conrad ‘In the Enemy Camp’. November Publications (1993) p.69. He favoured troops out of Ireland in the lifetime of a parliament, they wanted them out immediately (or sooner).
17 Livingstone letter printed 18/12/94 in response to article of 11/12/94 by Michael Gillard, both in The Observer.
18 The Observer 5/5/96-Gillard again…
19 Turn-About letter to The Times 17/3/00
20 Robin Ramsay ‘Prawn Cocktail Party’ Vision (1998) critiques Livingstone’s craven Euro-enthusiasm and chauvinism.
21 Tum-Around The Independent 28/4/99
22 MLR Smith, ‘Fighting for Ireland ? The Military Strategy of the Irish Republican Movement’ Routledge (1995), p. 101.
23 Livingstone The Independent 28/4/99
24 see Red Action July/August 2000. RA/AFA offer timely advice to leftists who underestimate BNP strength and ridicule today’s orthodox left opinion that left candidates, and. in particular, LSA candidates are doing better than fascists electorally. Put simply on the front cover of this issue ‘LSA Refugees Welcome Here 46,530 BNP Rights For Whites 76.906’.
25 Evening Standard 27/3/00
26 The Express 4/7/00 (Sarah Helm)
27 Evening Standard 27/7/00 (Simon Jenkins)
28 quoted in Evening Standard 9/12/99
29 Socialist Worker 6/5/00
30 Daily Mail interview 10/5/00
31 News Unlimited internet update 18/1/00
32 ibid. see also Livingstone’s article in Labour Left Briefing February 2000 p.12

EDITORIALCOMMENT

Having met some charming reptiles, including Arthur the iguana, I want to distance myself from any latent anti-reptilian sentiments in the above piece. Furthermore, no self-respecting reptile would want to join a Livingstone coalition.

I myself, as a delegate of the Green Party Anti-Racist Anti-Fascist Network, was the victim of despicable thuggish behaviour perpetrated by close Livingstone associate Lee Jasper in 1997, and consciously condoned by Livingstone both then and subsequently.

About The Author