February 2, 2010
Progressive London
Following my last post I’ve had an email exchange with Nick Cohen. Unsurprisingly given that I disagree with him on quite a lot, it’s been a little heated (the fact I insulted him in the last post doesn’t help).
But Nick has made me pay attention to a few things about “Progressive London“.
Firstly – and as Sunny had already noted – “Progressive London” is little more than Ken Livingstone’s re-election platform. This in itself might be no bad thing, in principle. It becomes so when we remember Ken Livingstone himself.
I’m not just thinking about the fact Red Ken probably doesn’t have the numbers to beat the abominable Boris Johnson. I’m thinking of the fact Livingstone himself is quite an unsavoury character. A latent authoritarianism in his politics seeped out at the Fabian Conference in his enormous enthusiasm for compulsory national service. His extolling of China and Vietnam as models for Britain added to my concerns on Saturday. And in fairness to Nick Cohen, two years ago he wrote a solid piece casting light on Livingstone’s shady past.
Yet Ken Livingstone himself was not the only problem at the Progressive London conference.
I’ve already noted the presence of his former economic adviser John Ross, a man who likewise extols the virtues of China whilst remaining gleefully silent about the issues of judicial murder, totalitarian dictatorship and suppression of basic rights.
But let’s not forget George Galloway, who just happens to be my MP. Another old leftist who spent his youth in the ultra-hard left, Galloway rose to his 15 minutes of international fame by personally saluting Saddam Hussein’s “courage”, “strength” and “indefatigability”. Now I was very much opposed to the Iraq war, and believe that history has proved myself and those who stood with me right.
Yet there is clear blue water between opposing illegal war and personally supporting a vicious, neo-fascit tyrant who gassed sections of his own population.
George Galloway is a national disgrace. He ought to occupy a pariah status on the left . Not a privileged position on a panel debate for so-called “progressives”.
Also present at the Progressive London conference was Bairbre de Brún MEP of Sinn Féin. Now let me say this loud and clear: I am no supporter of the loyalist cause in Northern Ireland. I am aware of the many horrors perpetrated by loyalist factions, and of the frequently uneven hand of British “justice” in Ulster.
But Sinn Féin remains the political wing of what was a terrorist organisation responsible for the deaths of thousands. Their presence at a conference for “progressives” is simply unacceptable. If a representative of the Irish nationalist cause was desired, the invitation should have gone to someone from the SDLP.
Questions might also be raised about the presence of Venezuelan Ambassador Samuel Moncada, in the light of this Human Rights Watch report. Ken, of course, has long-standing ties to Hugo Chavez. He does not appear to share many on the left’s mounting concern at Chavez’s slide into repressive authoritarianism, however.
Of course, many sensible and respectable people spoke at the event. There were also a few harmless idiots like Ann “North Sea Oil is irrelevant to growth” Pettifor, of the insufferable New Economics Foundation.
But regardless, we on the London left need to look carefully at Ken’s electoral machine, and see who he’s taking along for the ride. Then we need to decide whether it’s something we’re willing to be part of.
Personally I will not be joining Progressive London, nor attending any more of their events.
freethinkingeconomist said,
February 2, 2010 at 11:55 am
I think I may have a Cif piece up soon, and the insufferability of the Nef crew is cited as a giving real succour to the climate change denying camp. I see how this motivation works; every time I read a nef release, I feel ever more likely to buy a couple of Range Rovers, just for the hell of it.
paulinlancs said,
February 2, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Paul
Just wanted quickly to acknowledge the quality of these last two posts and the debate, which interested me not least because I actually went to that London in July 09 to a Progressive London event and head John Ross give a talk which sounds very similar to the one the other day (although I’d be interested in what he had to say about credit rating, as he did’nt talk about that in July).
At the end of his talk in the Q and As, I asked him what his view was on labour rights in China. John took the question as being from someone whom he would describe as being a liberal woolly or some such, and launched into a tirade quite close to what was in his comment to you in the previous post about the bare facts of 650 million being lifted out of absolute poverty.
It was a shame he reacted in this way, as in fact my question was not in fact a ‘leading question’; I do genuinely think there is some merit in his argument that China is not seeking to be a model for anyone – why should it bother? – and that 650m people not in dire poverty, however that happened, can’t be all wrong.
I’ll write something up about this, linked perhaps to my own experiences of Export Free Zones in Bangladesh, near some of the worst slums in the world and offering real hope of salvation on 30p per day. In short, though, I think there are dangers in being both (to use your phrase re: my views on higher education) too ‘high falutin” and relativist about this, without acknowledging that in many ways mucgh of China is not even yet a capitalist society and that there are therefore limits about the potential for comparison with the West on labour rights. Perhaps if we’re going to compare we might be better comparing mid-19th century Britain with current China (and other third world countries) than depend on our current expectations of what labout rights should look like, and see the whole as a process that needs to be gone through rather than a desired end state.
But I acknowledge I’m still thinking this stuff through myself, for exanmple with a post comparing debt default (im)possibilities in Ireland and DR Congo, and your post and ensuing debate has been very useful.
Paul Sagar said,
February 2, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Paul,
Good points, well made.
“without acknowledging that in many ways mucgh of China is not even yet a capitalist society and that there are therefore limits about the potential for comparison with the West on labour rights. Perhaps if we’re going to compare we might be better comparing mid-19th century Britain with current China (and other third world countries) than depend on our current expectations of what labout rights should look like, and see the whole as a process that needs to be gone through rather than a desired end state.”
I think I agree with this, though.
My problem with John Ross is that this doesn’t seem to be his position. Rather, he advocates China as a like-for-like model for the UK now. And he pays absolutely zero regard to the human rights and labour issues.
Given his background in the hard left, I’m therefore extremely dubious about his motivations and intentions.
You are of course right that any judgements about rights and development need to be contextualised and considered carefully for all the reasons you list. But as I’m sure you’ll agree, those issues must still remain very much on the agenda.
Singing thoroughgoing Chinese eulogies is very different from recognising the fact that China has seen a mass decrease in poverty, after all.
James A said,
February 2, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Hi Paul,
I think there a couple of things wrong with this post.
Firstly, that HRW report you mention on Venezuela was strongly criticised by more than 100 Latin America experts as not meeting “even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility”. Indeed, it “appears to be a politically motivated essay rather than a human rights report.”
(http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/4051)
You can see the further exchanges between HRW and the authors of the letter, but it seems to me fairly clear that the initial judgement was correct.
Don’t get me wrong: HRW are a goldmine of information about human rights abuses around the world. But they are also not as reliable as, say, Amnesty International.
Secondly, you say that you will not attend any more events of Progressive London, in part because they invited an MP from Sinn Fein and “Sinn Féin remains the political wing of what was a terrorist organisation responsible for the deaths of thousands.” But this isn’t a consistent position. You must attend events at which there are members of the Labour Party who strongly supported launching the Iraq War. For example, Jon Cruddas, who you have said is “a damn good public speaker who exhibits rare qualities in a modern politician: heart-felt commitment, passionate belief, and a healthy disregard for spin, sanitisation and calculated presentation.” According to They Work For You, he very strongly supported the war. He says he regrets his stance, but he has also consistently voted against an investigation into the Iraq War. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in that war, possibly over a million, there are millions displaced, the country is in complete ruins. Certainly much worse than anything Sinn Fein have ever done.
(http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/jon_cruddas/dagenham)
Having said that, I agree with your negative assessment of Galloway. I heard him speak at the European Social Forum once: he was the most bloody-minded orator I think I’ve ever heard.
James
Paul Sagar said,
February 2, 2010 at 2:58 pm
James
1. Thanks for the tip re Venezuela. But I’d still caution against over-enthusiastic Chavez support.
2. Re Sinn Fein: two wrongs don’t make a right, and the Labour party has never been merely the political wing of the Iraq war!
3. Re Jon Cruddas: fair point. I actually lost a lot of respect for him on Saturday when he didn’t speak out against John Ross et al
4. Galloway is a terrible person. Thinking of doing a post called ‘is my MP as bad ad Nick Griffin?’ – the answer will be ‘no, but…’
James A said,
February 2, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Paul,
Just to comment on your first two points, so that it’s clear what I was and wasn’t saying.
1. I agree. There are negative tendencies there, which those who are broadly supportive of the Chavez government’s aims need to be wary of. But it works the other way too: because of US antagonism towards and demonization of the regime, one has to be careful with one’s criticism. Unfortunately that even extends to respectable human rights organisations.
2. The point was about consistency, not about the rights and wrongs of the political groups being discussed. Also, whilst the Labour Party is not the political wing of a violent group, it has used state power numerous times to commit all sorts of atrocities, much worse than the crimes committed by Sinn Fein. Besides, Cruddas supported an especially horrific instance of this, and I assume that the decision to boycott an event because of the presence of an individual is based on the crimes of that individual.
Best,
James
Sunny H said,
February 2, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Good points – but coming from Nick Cohen this doesn’t really bode well for applying the same standards. After all – he writes for the neo-con rag Standpoint mag, which also has people with unsavoury histories. Nick likes to point fingers at others.
Secondly, there was a discussion about Galloway on Johann Hari’s facebook where several of us roundly criticised him and said we hated the guy. I don’t agree with the politics of everyone I attend events to. Being on the same platform as them is a different matter however.
lastly giles: and the insufferability of the Nef crew is cited as a giving real succour to the climate change denying camp.
I saw that idiotic BBC doc and am pissed with it. Look, there are some people who go overboard, but to blame greenies for the environmental movement is to miss the wood for the trees. The green movement has grown despite these people being its prominent face. The biggest threat now comes from the likes of Nigel Lawson and his thank-tank not the NEF. And yet the BBC wants to blame the NEF while inviting Lawson regularly on its programme. Idiots.
freethinkingeconomist said,
February 2, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Which BBC doc?
The grauniad are being very slow in responding to Cif piece. They ASKED me to adapt ClimateHate for them, but not so sure it works now; blogs so much more sponteneous.
I was going to look at the latest nef piece proving we can’t grow. Should I bother? I mean, in the words of Paul, am I just kicking the fat kid?
Paul Sagar said,
February 2, 2010 at 4:53 pm
Sunny, Giles
yeah, what BBC doc? (I don’t have time to watch telly!)
Giles,
how amusing that CiF commissioned you to rewrite something. In the past they’ve fobbed me off with “no we can’t run this, you wrote it on your blog already”. I’d rather they just said “not good enough”, like Sunny does!
best,
freethinkingeconomist said,
February 2, 2010 at 5:01 pm
My problem with all this: while I am a big fan of my own blog post in terms of writing (and am very impartial on such matters), I am not sure where it is going. Sure, both sides of the global warming debate are ad hominem. The solution is . . .?
And I don’t want to set myself up as an expert – this is a horrifyingly nasty and endlessly googleable area, and I want my life back. so I am not sure I should have even written it
Paul Sagar said,
February 2, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Hmm, but you’re on the side of the angels.
And politics is something that has to be fought for. And climate change is arguably the most important politics of the modern era.
It could be much worse.
You could have written a really, reall dumb interview when you were a cocky 21 year old undergraduate who was simultaneously feeling very sorry for himself.
and that could be the top search result if people put “interview” next to your name into google.
and oh my god, would you really regret that.
!
Duncan said,
February 2, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Hmm, so Ken Livingstone’s re-election campaign rally features unsavoury, long-term political allies of his? Knock me down with a feather!
I’m not really interested in the Nick Cohen school of political debate (this man/group has links to bad people, he is/they are bad!) and I think there’s a much more relevant criticism of Ken Livingstone and his firm conviction that ruling London is his birth right: that he’s already had 8 years in office to prove his credentials as ‘Red Ken’.
This is interesting though:
Re Sinn Fein: two wrongs don’t make a right, and the Labour party has never been merely the political wing of the Iraq war!
I’m no fan of Sinn Féin but I’m confused about the relevance of this. It’s obvious the Labour Party aren’t the political wing of the Iraq war but equally obvious that the PIRA have, for all intents and purposes, ceased to exist and that it’s now getting on for close to a decade since Sinn Féin could reasonably be considered the political wing of an essentially military group.
So, on the one hand, you are supportive of Jon Cruddas even though he openly supported unleashing carnage in Iraq beyond anything witnessed in Northern Ireland yet regard the invitation of Bairbre de Brún, a woman who is a member of an organisation which has renounced violence as a means to achieve its political aims some years ago, as ‘unacceptable’.
Can you see why there might be grounds for some confusion here?
Also this term:
ultra-hard left
makes no sense at all.
Sunny H said,
February 2, 2010 at 6:58 pm
See this lame blog post and the article linked from it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2010/01/the_problem_with_hidden_agendas.html
I plan to write about it for CIF…
Duncan: I’m not really interested in the Nick Cohen school of political debate
Neither am I – but there comes a point when inviting people like Galloway and Islamists become a liability. I know plenty of more progressive and moderate Muslims who’d say very intelligent things about grassroots organising.
links for 2010-02-02 « Rumblegumption said,
February 3, 2010 at 12:18 am
[...] Progressive London « Bad Conscience [...]
John Ross said,
February 3, 2010 at 4:30 am
Paul,
You seem rather selective in your views on who should not be on platforms. Apparently you don’t object to Harriet Harman, a leading member of a government which launched a war that killed several hundred thousand people in Iraq, and which she supported, but George Galloway, who said things I don’t agree with on Saddam Hussein, but who opposed this war, should be excluded – seems a strange order of priorities. Don’t get me wrong I am very much in favour of Harriet Harman being there and also George Galloway.
Ditto Ed Milliband, also a leading member of a government which launched the Iraq war is OK but Bairbre de Brun MEP of Sinn Fein, one of, or perhaps by now the, largest party by electoral support in the North of Ireland, when the IRA has destroyed all is weapons, is unacceptable. Again to avoid any confusion it was absolutely right to have both Ed Milliband and Bairbre de Brun there.
As I was also apparently a person to be excluded let me repeat my views. I believe in a society in which every single person enjoys a standard of living in which they can live their best possible life and which is totally democratic in character. Despite the fact that road to get there will be long and difficult I remain completely optimistic humanity will make it in the end. It just won’t be achieved all in one leap and progress will be difficult and uneven. Don’t forget less than a century ago women did not even have the vote and today women still remain far behind in income and many other rights. We are less than half a century away from the collapse of the final colonial empires and international inequality remains an affront to any idea of a just human society.
In this long hard road China, which constitutes one fifth of humanity, has had to overcome innumerable difficulties and problems – to be more precise the country has gone through more than a hundred and fifty years of agony (attack by Britain to impose import of opium, attack by innumerable European powers to impose their law and concessions on parts of, invasion by Japan with the death of 30 million people, civil war, the madness of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution) to get where it is now. No surprise it is very far from a perfect society. It is just one that is going forward – which is why you don’t want to address the question that to lift 620 million people out of poverty is a gigantic contribution to humanity. I will deal with some of your other points below.
This also relates to the points made by Donpaskini in a comment on a previous post. It does not aid anything to claim I know nothing about economics and therefore my ideas don’t have to be replied to – as anyone who reads Socialist Economic Bulletin, which has been appearing for many years, can easily judge. Also as I wrote my first long article explaining the success of the Chinese economic reforms 18 years ago, when I was being paid by international companies, don’t introduce the anyway irrelevant argument that I have my analysis of China because I am paid to do so! Just address the arguments. The issues being discussed are very important for literally billions of people so it is best to debate them as clearly and calmly as possible – calmness normally aids clarity.
There are two discussions. One about China, one about economic policy in general.
The whole attempt to talk about China as a ‘model’ for a country such as the UK is misleading and I certainly don’t advocate it. I look at some basic questions of economics and how they apply both in the UK and China – that is not to present China as a ‘model’ for the UK.
China, despite its very large economy, is a country at a stage of economic development far less advanced than the UK. To take the latest IMF data, , using Parity Purchasing Powers to avoid distortions, GDP per capita in the US is $46,400, in the UK $35,200, and in China $6,500 – i.e. GDP per capita in the US is more than seven times that of China, and in the UK almost five and a half times that of China. With such economic realities, to point out/accuse China of not having the same standard of living, including social protection, health care etc as Britain or the US is senseless – there is no objective possibility for China today to provide such things.
China’s greatest achievement, and it is a colossal one, is to take 620 million people out of absolute poverty. This is, to repeat, greater than the entire population of Western Europe and is twice the population of the US. The scale of magnitude of that achievement is shown by the fact that it is the entire reduction of the numbers of people in absolute poverty in the world.
But even at its present extremely rapid growth rate it will take China 25 years to achieve the present GDP per capita of the UK and 30 years to reach that of the US. At these levels of GDP per capita China will, of course, then have the same ability to provide at least an equivalent level of social protection to the UK and US – and if it didn’t, I promise I will be the first to condemn it. But it is not a serious argument to point out China does not provide equal social protection to countries which have five and a half or seven times the GDP per capita.
A more relevant comparison is with India. In 1949 GDP per capita in India and China were roughly the same. Today GDP per capita in China is 2.2 times that in India. Anyone who visits Delhi and Beijing, the political capitals of India and China, or Mumbai and Shanghai, the financial capitals of the two countries, knows there is absolutely nothing like the fearful slums in Mumbai and Delhi in China – and I say that as someone who is a very great admirer of the economic successes of Manmohan Singh the prime minister of India. I have no hesitation is saying the fact that China has achieved twice the level of economic development of a country which started off with the same GDP per capita is an achievement to be greatly admired. Hopefully India will achieve the same result and I will be equally pleased. The result of these processes is that eradication of poverty, illiteracy and innumerable other evils has advanced rapidly in China and this is an immense benefit to the whole of humanity.
The key to China’s development of greater social protection and democracy, which I certainly welcome, is its rapid economic growth. Also one of the strongest correlations in the world is between economic development and democracy – all the advanced economies are some form of democracy in their own borders (although regrettably they all too frequently meet out and support barbaric invasions and dictatorship abroad as the invasion of Iraq, support for the Saudi dictatorship and numerous other examples remind us). I have no doubt the economic development of China is the key not only to economic improvement and social progress for its people but also to its democracy. I therefore welcome its economic development for both reasons.
Turning to economic policy outside China it is not in the slightest necessary for, as Keynes put it, a ‘somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment’ to have a dictatorship. Indeed if this is the best and most functioning economic system it will eventually be chosen by democracy.
The point I made was that the economic recession in Europe and the US is driven by a collapse in investment. This accounts for almost three quarters of the downturn in the UK, the whole of the economic decline in the US, etc. I favour, as Keynes did, direct intervention into the investment mechanism to halt that decline in investment – i.e. in the UK large scale transport, housing and other programmes. I made the point that in China state investment had been used to prevent there being any decline in output at all. That is to illustrate an economic point (the cause of the recession is a fall in investment) in two different countries – China and the UK. It is not to present China as a ‘model’ for the UK.
As regard the specific point about the balance between investment and consumption in China, which is the issue posed by Donpaskini’s comments about China’s savings, the guiding line in economic policy must be the most rapid possible sustainable development of living standards in China – sustainable self-evidently meaning including environmental protection. This is, however, not best achieved by the transfer of the maximum possible amount of GDP to consumption. Modern econometrics confirms that, after participation in the national and international division of labour, investment is the most powerful instrument of economic growth. Under those circumstances better to invest and grow. Therefore the very high savings rate in China, which is necessary to finance the high investment rate, contributes to the most rapid possible sustainable rate of increase in living standards – the increases in consumption created by the very rapid growth rate are much greater than those that would be achieved by redistributing national income to consumption and therefore having a very much slower growth rate. So I am for the most rapid possible sustainable development of consumption in China (including a health service and social protection) and for that reason favour a high investment rate and therefore a high growth rate.
links for 2010-02-03 « Rumblegumption said,
February 4, 2010 at 12:34 am
[...] Progressive London « Bad Conscience [...]
Nick Cohen’s half empty glass « Though Cowards Flinch said,
February 11, 2010 at 11:31 pm
[...] doesn’t seem very popular. Certainly, Sunny’s pretty [...]