Mayor elections: can socialists contest them?
- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
It's just been announced that Greater Manchester is to have an elected mayor like Greater London:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/03/manchester-directly-elected-mayor
By co-incidence at our Autumn Delegate Meeting a couple of weeks ago, we discussed the possibility of contesting the London mayor elections in May 2016.
The discussion was not just about the practical difficulties (£10,000 deposit, 330 signatories) but about the principle. Some members felt strongly that we should not contest such elections at all on the grounds that mayors are leaders and we are opposed to all leadership. Here's an extract from the draft minutes:
Quote:S. (West Midlands): his branch had doubts as wasn't the mayor a leader?
D. (East Anglia): absolutely opposed to standing for mayor as this was a leadership post while we were opposed to all leadership.
B. (non-delegate): contesting the mayor position would undermine our anti-leadership stance and could be used against us.
J. (Swansea): if elected, any socialist mayor would be under party and working class control and would have to follow their instructions, so would not be able to act as a leader, only as a delegate.
P. (non-delegate): MPs could be regarded as leaders too.It is true that we did denounce the proposal for an elected mayor in London as undemocratic but is not contesting them really a question of principle? And a principle that would apply to our US comrades too, preventing them from contesting not just mayor, but governor and presidential elections there? Which, incidentally, never worried the DeLeonist SLP of America there.
An organisation calling itself the "Independent Working Class Association" did stand a candidate for mayor of London in 2004 (and got 9452 votes, or 0.5%). I thought they'd gone out of existence but apparently they still exist: http://www.iwca.info/
Surely we could stand on the principle that our mayor would become a figurehead for an elected body. I beleive in Canada the Governor of one province did something like that. i.e. we'd have to stand on a slate of spreading democracy. Admittedly, it does raise the terrifying prospect of use having a city fall into our lap (as happened to the English Democrats in Doncaster) where we'd actually have to take charge of administering a city under capitalism, but we'd have to show how we can be different. If we're going to be taken seriously, we have to take this issue on head on.
Or we could do what this candidate for mayor of Lewisham did in 2010 (and again this year): say that if elected we'd abolish the post of elected mayor:http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/4878598.LEWISHAM__Candidate_vows_to_abolish_elected_mayor_system/
ALB wrote:It's just been announced that Greater Manchester is to have an elected mayor like Greater London:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/03/manchester-directly-elected-mayorBy co-incidence at our Autumn Delegate Meeting a couple of weeks ago, we discussed the possibility of contesting the London mayor elections in May 2016.The discussion was not just about the practical difficulties (£10,000 deposit, 330 signatories) but about the principle. Some members felt strongly that we should not contest such elections at all on the grounds that mayors are leaders and we are opposed to all leadership. Here's an extract from the draft minutes:Quote:S. (West Midlands): his branch had doubts as wasn't the mayor a leader?D. (East Anglia): absolutely opposed to standing for mayor as this was a leadership post while we were opposed to all leadership.B. (non-delegate): contesting the mayor position would undermine our anti-leadership stance and could be used against us.J. (Swansea): if elected, any socialist mayor would be under party and working class control and would have to follow their instructions, so would not be able to act as a leader, only as a delegate.P. (non-delegate): MPs could be regarded as leaders too.It is true that we did denounce the proposal for an elected mayor in London as undemocratic but is not contesting them really a question of principle? And a principle that would apply to our US comrades too, preventing them from contesting not just mayor, but governor and presidential elections there? Which, incidentally, never worried the DeLeonist SLP of America there.An organisation calling itself the "Independent Working Class Association" did stand a candidate for mayor of London in 2004 (and got 9452 votes, or 0.5%). I thought they'd gone out of existence but apparently they still exist: http://www.iwca.info/
If the party decided to contest any mayoral election it would be for exactly the same purpose for why we contest any election: 1. It's a means of promoting the case for socialism. 2. It provides a benchmark on support. 3. It underlines our determination on using the ballot to capture political power.If we can overcome the practical difficulties contesting the London mayor elections is proportionally cheaper than contesting the European elections.
Didn't take long, did it? Scarcely 4 weeks and Khan's election promise is broken.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/08/sadiq-khan-london-fares-promise-public-transport-mayor-election
Modern elections elect candidates based not on ideology and not so much on tribalism any more (e.g. generational perennial Labour voters etc.) but on short-term campaign promises aimed at those with short memories, rallies for hired or ambivalent supporters and branding. National campaigns are even about bookies odds and who's winning not policies. You can see this when the media report on apolitical concepts like 'momentum' as in 'Hillary has the momentum'. Debates are often based on personality and point-scoring. Mayoral elections don't seem any different except there is more scope for independents which ends up being about personality, and perhaps less for party platforms except for fundraising. Can socialists change this? Can anyone else? Should socialists change this or just seek election ourselves on our own terms?
Imposs1904 has found another promise on urban transport by another mayor:http://www.business-review.eu/news/bucharest-could-have-free-public-transport-says-newly-elected-mayor-108156At least it's better than giving people a "basic income" and then charging them to use public transport, though both reforms will have the same effect of exerting a downward pressure on wage levels.Khan was warned during the election that he was making a wild promise as the capitalist enterprise that is Transport for London has to at least balance its books and was never going to get the subsidy from central government that would be the only way to honour his promise.He made similarly wild promises on housebuilding. He'll betray them too, for the same reason. Capitalism puts profits before people and imposes this on politicians who might promise (and event want) the opposite.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.