London Labour Briefing no. 2

G.L.C. MANIFESTO:

WE'LL DECIDE!

JEREMY CORBYN Member of GLRC Executive

THIS TIME

TRADITIONALLY THE PRODUCTION of election manifestoes has been a process steeped in mysticism and intrigue—the actual document emerging from a “smoke-filled room” a few weeks before an election and thrust on the unsuspecting public and received with horror by an equally unsus-

pecting party membership.

The subjugation of the production of a document as vital as an election manifesto to the need to grab the headlines at the appropriate time has been a serious failing of the Labour Party. Even more disastrous has been the process that allows vital planks of Conference policy to be removed at the crucial stage by the Party leadership.

Had Labour won in 1979, Callaghan for 1981 will be ditterent—it will be a

would not have been in the least embar- socialist policy and will be voted on in its

assed by Labour's PrOnenime: By 8 entirity by a full conference of the Lonsystem of “closed door” arm-twisting he don Labour Party.

pe fe reaied snany. of the vital conference Immediately after the 1979 Conference votes of the preceeding five yea Any of the London Labour Party, the newlybattle for a socialist manifesto is insepar- elected Executive appointed six working able ee the battle for Jeal eels parties to deal with major areas of policy: tability and democracy in the Labour Industry and Employment, Housing, Party. Transport, Planning, Finance and ManageAsa start we must remove the content ment, and Education. Membership of and prouachion ee oe the these committees was drawn from EC ams of the past and state quite members, nominees from affiliated bodies oy os ces adual DIOETAMIMG WY and a small number of co-opted Party intend to implement is the manifesto! Caahos. Only by tis pais will ae Boy Ue Their brief is to produce policy docuice d to campaign on all He plies at ments in line with conference policy, but a ches That way the public political also ones that could be used immediately education work can be seen to have a by a Labour GLC to enact policy. It is

real definable aim. = y now Vital that no excuse for lethargy, The NEC has decided to produce a welching on the manifesto or obstruc-

“rolling a — all ps tion by Council officials should be

come, but it must be backed up wi tolerated. The record of the 1973-77

continuous campaigning in support of 7 24 oyr GLC was indeed one of direct

these policies. ees violation of the manifesto in the case of In many ways, the battles that have tansport and of allowing the bureaucracy

been fought and lost nationally have at Count : ; y Hall to spend three and a half been mirrored in London. The 1977 GLC years delaying a planning policy that

manifesto was produced by a tiny caucus Courd not then be started before losing

emanating from County Hall and was ffi clearly not representative of GLRC ee pag a Conference decisions. Our manifesto

Editorial

Since we last went to press, a number of good things have happened. The T&GWU’s demand for a recalled National Conference has been conceded, though how much a real discussion on strategy will occur remains to be seen.

Equally, at London level the GLRC has opened a major new battle in the fight for control of the GLC with its plans for free public trans-_ port. These will come under a vicious attack from the Tories, right-wingers in our own party, and, of course, the media. Members must ensure that these proposals are fought through—full support from the London Labour movement is essential.

It has been very clear for some time now that a major conference for socialists in local government must be organised. Briefing will undertake to help organise this and plans are now afoot. The next issue will carry full details but any enquiries and offers of help should be sent to Mike Davis (tel: 254 8601), who is acting as co-ordinator for this venture. The conference is prosionally booked for Saturday Sth July.

GLC Manifesto

-The GLRC Executive, with a large number of amendments to the Education Working Party report, has now approved all of the reports for publication at the end of April. There then follows a period of three months for CLPs to debate the manifesto and propose amendments by the end of July, for a special policy conference on October 18th. |

The role of the right on the Regional Executive has been curious. Led by the CLV they have sought to protect the leadership of ILEA from criticism, to the extent of opposing reference to the appalling cuts in ILEA. This is totally contrary to conference policy. Even more pathetic, they are now mouthing allegations of “splitting the party” if free fares become out policy!

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO ALL BRIEFING READERS

The GLRC has arranged four meetings to introduce the consultative papers. These have not been widely publicised but it is very important that a large number of Party members attend. The meetings are open to

all Labour Party members in the Greater London area. The venues are as follows (all meetings start at 7.30pm):

Central London Conference Hall County Hall, SE1 Monday 19th May

East London Civic Centre Bow Road, E3 Friday 13th June

The critical test will come this summer: im | i b | if we are to have a socialist manifesto to 4 I | |

put to the electorate in 1981 all trades union and CLP members must be involved in the discussions so we as a Party can fight successfully for Labour to win the GLC next year. If we succeed it will be

a huge blow to the Thatcher government: it’s up to us to make sure we do.

BRIEFING has been selling extremely successfully. We received money for over 1,000 copies of the last issue. In view of the fact that BRIEFING is sold almost exclusively at GMCs and ward branch meetings of the Labour Party in London, this represents a considerable achievement. Why then, has this issue had to be reduced from a 12-pager to

an 8-pager? It is simply because

our income fell short of our expenditure last time by about £75.

There is no question that BRIEFING has a future and is going to grow—

in quality, circulation and size. But if you want the next and subsequent issues to be 12-page ones (and this

is really necessary if BRIEFING is

to fulfill its function), we must receive some small subsidy from

our contributors, distributors and readers. All we need is for, say, 5 people to commit themselves to donating £5 per month, and 25 people to donate £2—and we’re there. Surely this shouldn’t be beyond us, if we’re at all serious about our politics. It’s up to you. Do nothing and we'll stay weak.

Fill in a bankers’s order form

(£2 per month), join us—and we'll be a real force. Go to your bank

and fill in a standing order form. Our bank is the Co-op bank, Croydon Branch, sorting code No 0890-97, Our account no is 50120176 —credit it £2 per month,to “London Labour Briefing”.

WOMEN

West London

Council Chamber Camden Town Hall, NW1 Friday 6th June

South London Battersea Old Town Hall Lavender Hill, SW11 Monday 23rd June

MERLE AMORY

ANGELA SHARIFF Brent East CLP

ORGANISE

When women in our CLP decided there was a need to revitalise a women’s section in the constituency, we met with four types of reaction—outright opposition from sexist men; patronising support by the more chauvinist men; whole-hearted support from men who had a basic understanding of women’s oppressing; and open hostility from many of the older women. They claimed to be concerned that our section would become a tea and knitting circle as we accept many of our women’s sections are.

However, as many of our founder members were feminists, their criticisms and fears were proven totally unjustified.

The women’s section was formed 18 months ago and has grown rapidly ever since with 18 members, all active in the Party and most of us on the GMC. Our confidence has grown collectively and we've made a substantial, sustained impact within the Party as locally on issues such as the Corrie Bill; sex differentiation in education and sexism within the Party, as well as being vocal in the rates debate and the cuts. The women’s section has continually presented their collective political ideas on all major issues to the Party.

Shortly after being set up the women’s section organised a public meeting at Brent Town Hall, with Jo Richardson MP, on whether women should organise separately and by all accounts it was a very successful meeting and we received a lot of support.

But amidst all this activity, we had overlooked one of the most fundamental and necessary questions, that of true

women’s solidarity.

This was brought home to us by two of our sisters, one of whom had just had a baby and was suffering from severe post natal depression and isolation and the other was suffering from schitzophrenia.

They issued us with a challenge, in effect they said “stop talking about abstract problems—we’ve got real ones. What are you going to do for us?”

We had discussed women’s oppression and the need to give each other support and had expressed this politically, but not carried it out in our personal, private lives They proposed that we set up a support group which would enable us to really get to know one another and build up a feeling of trust and friendship—because this is the foundation on which sisterhood and solidarity is based, which we hope will back up and strengthen our political solidarity. We felt this was the only way to ensure that some of us were not able to adopt the traditional male leadership role, and—yes—intimidate other women in the group, because we knew that our collective strength was dependent on equal participation of all the women within the group. Even though some of us differ politically, we can discuss the ideas without antagonism, because we are united as women.

We doubt that anyone in Brent East CLP would argue against us organising separately as women, even though some of the women in the Party will not become involved because they do not consider they need the collective strength of women behind them—vet!

IRELAND: Labour Committee Formed

Over 100 Labour Party members packed a conference held on March 29th in Islington to set up a campaign to commit the Party to a position of British political and military withdrawal from Ireland.

Forty-four constituency Labour Parties were represented, a half of whom were official delegates. Nearly 30 were London CLPs, reflecting the tremendous vote in favour of withdrawal at the London Labour Conference, as reported in the first issue of this bulletin.

Jock Stallard, MP for St Pancras, opened the conference with an unequivocal call on all activists in the Labour movement:

We must build mass support inside the Labour Party and Trade Union movement demanding and insisting that we demolish the bi-partisan approach which has bedevilled the Labour Party for so long. . . most of us here oppose Partition. Our task

is to move the Party towards that policy.

2. repudiates the policies of successive British governments which have effectively guaranteed the right of veto to the Unionist minority in Ireland, thereby ensuring that the present disastrous situation remains unresolved;

3 feels that effective communication between British and Irish working class organisations is essential and urges that measures be taken to ensure that British trade unionists and Labour Party members are provided with accurate information about the views of their Irish counterparts;

4 instructs the Labour Party leadership to adopt a policy favouring political and military withdrawal from Ireland;

5 calls on the next Labour government to immediately begin the process of this full political and military withdrawal.””

The deeply-held desire of the vast majority All CLP activists are urged to make this

of the Irish people for an end to British involvement in Ireland and the barrier that involvement represents to progress and developments towards socialism in that island were clearly appreciated by the conference. The debates centred on when and how Britain should withdraw and the following model resolution for this year’s Labour Party conference was adopted overwhelmingly:

“Conference recognises the evidence that the clear popular wish of the Trish people favours a British withdrawal from Ireland, and progress towards a united Ireland.

Furthermore, we recognise that British involvement in Ireland constitutes a major obstacle.to developments towards socialism in that country. Conference therefore:

1 rejects the current bi-partisan

their preferred Labour Party conference motion when Parties debate these at their May or June meetings.

In addition, the conference established a steering committee of 17 members and already Labour Party members in Scotland and the Midlands have indicated their willingness to set up regional committees. In support of the struggle by Republican prisoners for political status the conference agreed that the LCI should sponsor the aims of the ‘Charter 80’ campaign for the right of prisoners to wear their own clothes, refrain from prison work, for free association, to organise

recreational facilities and to full remission.

Lastly, it was decided to publish a bulletin, the first edition of which will be available at the end of April. CLPs, wards and other labour movement organisations should be encouraged to affiliate (£2) to the LCI which can be contacted at:

policies of the Parliamentary Labour LCI, c/o 5 Stamford Hill, London N16. Party leadership;

Pn aa eee

HARINGEY LABOUR MOVEMENT ANTI-RACIST & ANTI-FASCIST CAMPAIGN

“Conference on the Fight Against Racism” Saturday 10th May 1980 West Green Community Centre, Stanley Road, London N15

Conference Fee: SOp Plenty of time for discussion

Details from: Andy Love, HLMARAF, 28 Middle Lane, London N8 8PL

Speakers include: Reg Race MP, Norman Atkinson MP, Cllr.Bernie Grant Maurice Styles, UPW, Geoff Crawford and Julian Henriques.

‘ALL OUT MAY Vin

The TUC has organised a massive “Day of Action” on May 14th to show opposition to government policies. The march arranged for

_ central London is going to be preceeded by ten different district rallies throughout London—organised by groups of Trades Councils. The total turnout should be very large and national support has been pledged by all major unions.

Len Murray has urged everyone to take the day off—not a general strike you understand—but many workers may decide to strike anyway. What you can practically do is:

* — Contact your local trades council for details of your local activity and how you can help.

* . See your workplace is on strike on the 14th.

* Make your ward/GMC/union branch take its banners along.

* Fight for your local authority to support its council workers by shutting for May 14th.

@ @ @ BRIEFING @ ® ® ' : ee ® eee

EDITORIAL ®.®.@

eee © ee POLICY

In this issue we have succeeded in printing every article or letter submitted to us—no matter what the ‘line’ being argued—without cuts or alterations. We'll do our utmost to continue this policy. The aim is to provide information which

cannot be obtained elsewhere, not to harangue readers with an artificallyconcocted ideological ‘line’. Be as polemical as you like, but please try to keep your articles (a) informative and (b) » short. We'll try to find space for everything, but the longer your article, the smaller the typeface will have to be! Articles to:

‘Briefing’, 158 Thorold Road, Ilford, Essex.

Di De

HAGKIN EW;

FIGHTING THE CUTS

Over 400 lobbiers gathered outside Hackney Town Hall to vent their anger at the Labour council’s policy on cuts and finance. A large contingent of local government workers, members of NALGO, joined demonstrators from the Trades Council, the three Labour Parties, play and nursery groups, the Housing Action Campaign, among others, to press for more militant action from the Council against the Tories savage cut-back policies. Notably absent from the lobby was the Tory-led Hackney Rates Campaign, whose demands for no rate rises, but big cuts, seem to have fizzled out.

Whilst no substantial cuts have been made in Hackney services—many councillors say Hackney is “doing a Lambeth” —the real picture is not as simple as that.

te Rents are up 25% or £1.50 for borough tenants.

© Rates are up 48.9% (49% in 1979).

. 190 voluntary redundancies agreed with unions in the Direct Labour Organisation with further redundancies to be negotiated with supervisory staff.

* Staff savitigs—£1,200,000 reductions in salaries bill planned, equivalent to, say 180-190 jobs.

Zi Charges up for numerous council services from heating (40%) to meals-on-wheels (up 1 1p).

In effect the council headership is cutting growth plans, making people pay more for existing services and in some cases in finance for voluntary organisations, for example, not raising expenditure sufficiently to keep pace with inflation. Housing development will also be hard hit with £10 million cut as a direct result of the government’s HIPs reductions. Maintenance will be cut by over £1 million—about

20%.

Twelve of Hackney’s 59 Labour councillors (one Tory) voted against the pro-

posals, and a number more opposed the rent rises.

The whole problem with the Labour leadership’s approach however, is that it lacks imagination or political audacity.

A borough-wide campaign to explain the iniquities of the current system of central government finance could help ignite and direct the widespread opposition to the Tvu.ies deflationary policies.

The finger must be pointed at central government’s control over 60% of direct finance through the Rate Support GRant (which it is intent on cutting and attaching penalty strings to), and severe cash limits—7% less than current inflation—and the bankers and money lenders who claw back over 30% of all council spending in interest payments. Instead of this kind of campaigning using all the borough’s resources—newspapers, leaflets, public meetings, local radio, demonstrations, to amke the case against the private enterprise profit system and for public spending, the council leadership has adopted a behind-closeddoors neogtiating approach which sees too much local struggle and activity as a threat to its managerial pussy-footing.

Hackney needs bold action from its elected representatives. Over 6,000 are unemployed, thousands are homeless, on housing waiting lists or living in accommodation in dire need of repair. A recent report found Hackney to be the poorest area in the EEC. It certainly has the highest number of single-parent families in Europe. It is an ageing borough, with

. the highest dependency ratio of any

London borough according to the 1971 census, with a third of over-75s living alone. Hackney has one of the highest numbers of children in care, a high birth rate and perinatal mortality rate worse than the Greater London average.

Hackney’s total loan debt per person in 1979 was £1,065.45—up from £772.87 in 1976-77. And yet at the last Labour government’s hehest—now with a venge-

MIKE DAVIS Hackney South CLP

ance from the Tories—hospitals have been closed down, six of the borough’s secondary school are due for the chop with lost

teaching jobs which could have been used to reduce class size. Seriously effected will be hundreds of women workers in schools

and hospitals who will either swell the dole queues or simply return to the

kitchen sink losing hard-won limited independence and income.

Public services to meet social needs and expand employment was the keynote of the Labour Council’s election manifesto. Unless it rapidly becomes the ~ centrepiece of campaigning, alongside pledges for no rent increases, more demoralisation and divisions will open up —as they have in other parts of the labour movement—and united action against the

Tories will be a more remote prospect. To -

build this united action the Labour Parties in alliance with the Trades Council are staging a special conference to thrash out a strategy for the fightback. The provisional date is Saturday June 14th.

Despite

& Hackney Council’s lack of campaigning and mobilisation of the local labour movement if Environment Secretary — Heseltine goes ahead with his penalties for “overspending” boroughs, Hackney could find itself in the same firing line as

Lambeth, Lothian and others in November. —

Defence of Hackney council will then have -

to be combined with an offensive policy which must be collectively worked out.

All labour movement and campaign groups in Hackney should write to the Trades Council Cuts sub-committee c/o 96 Dalston Lane, E8, for more information.

BRIEFING IS VITAL TO YOU !

Subscribe for £2 per annum cheques/POs made payable to London Labour Briefing

send them to 158 Thorold Road, Ilford, Essex

EAAVAIN GSE

TORIES SLASH SERVICES

SINCE TAKING OVER from Labour in May 1978, Ealing’s Tory Council has shown a remarkable skill at digging holes into which its own elected

representatives subsequently fall.

Their handling of municipal affairs has been characterised by a degree of ineptitude and insensitivity that is surprising even by the low standards of outer London conservatism.

It was Ealing Council, after all, who sanctioned the use of Southall Town Hall last year for a National Front election meeting in an area with a majority of brown and black residents. This crass decision, and the police harassment that followed, has seriously jeopardised many years of community relations work in the area.

Like the Bourbons before them, the Tories failed to learn any lessons from this debacle. Indeed; only months later, their spokesmen were indulging in vitriolic attacks on Ealing’s Community Relations Council and cutting its financial support in the name of ‘public expenditure restraint’ (their euphemism for cuts!).

It is, above all, the Tories’ cutbacks that have successfully attacked and antagonised virtually every section of the electorate—the elderly, the under-fives, school pupils and students, Council tenants and the authority’s own employees to name just a few.

It is in education however that the Tory Party, spuriously committed to ‘raising standards’, has applied the axe most brutally. This year, there is to be a cut of £3.8 million (i.e. 8%) in the education budget. This is one of the largest cuts so far announced in Britain. One hundred and eighty teaching posts are to be deleted, nursery education stopped completely, school meal prices boosted to 50p, and adult education classes to cost £35 per session (compared to £10 at present).

In housing, new building has effectively ceased and—as elsewhere in London— Council houses are being sold with enthusiasm (although the take-up on this ‘sale of the century’ has, happily, been quite limited). Tenants are to undertake more of their own repairs and are being charged an extra 34% in rent for the privilege.

' The deprived and the handicapped have not been excluded by Ealing’s benign Tory masters. A day centre for the mentally and physically disabled has

been closed and the borough’s only mother-and-baby home has also been shut down amid much Victorian humbug about unmarried parents.

A similarly anachronistic approach is evident in other policy matters as well. A few of the brasher young Tories are almost rabid in their support for economic policies that threaten to turn West London, once a thriving industrial zone, into a wasteland. Major employers like British Leyland (who no longer flash their nickname as ‘makers of Loridon’s buses’) and Firestones have closed down putting thousands on the dole.

In social policy, the Council has aided and abetted the efforts of the Church of England to take over a successful and multi-racial comprehensive school in Acton for its own elitist and divisive purposes. Naturally, this had been defended as an attempt to ensure greater ‘freedom of choice’. Does this sound familiar?

To its credit, the labour movement (and voluntary groups in which Labour Party members are active) has been a consistent and vocal critic of Tory measures. A borough-wide Liaison Committee Against the Cuts has been set up in which the Ealing CLPs played a formative and continuing role. There have been numerous lobbies and protests outside key Council meetings, mass leafletting and petitioning, and a very positive contribution to the local press.

Numerous local-campaigns have grown up around specific issues. The EalingActon Labour Party has been active in defence of health and nursery facilities _ in the vicinity and was co-sponsor of an impressive public meeting with Neil Kinnock against the High School sale to the Church. Other campaigns have developed with greater or lesser amounts of spontaneity on the ending of nursery education, keeping open the borough’s one maternity hospital in Perivale, and even against increased allotment charges!

The minority Labour Group has been a determined opponent of all cuts introduced by the present administration although sceptics question if they would

GARETH DANIEL Press and Publicity Officer Ealing-Acton CLP

adopt a ‘no cuts’ policy were they still in control. On the evidence of 1976-78, it seems unlikely. There has also been a disturbing hint of ‘cuts in the wrong places’ in their attacks on the Council which has added to the ambivalence of their stand.

What Ealing’s two Tory GLC Members (Sir Malby Crofton in Ealing-North { and John Dobson in Ealing-Acton) think about local cuts or any other issue for that matter is purely speculative. Both perform very passable imitations of The Invisible Man. Sir Malby Crofton’s closest approach to a public pronouncement was a recent criticism of London Transport’s services which even he had to qualify by admitting he didn’t personally use the buses very much himself!

So, overall, the incompetence of local Tories suggests a cautiously optimistic future for Ealing’s Labour Parties. What remains to be seen is whether we can win the hearts and minds of local people behind a genuinely socialist programme and then implement that programme. Going on past experience, that may not be too easy even with a Labour government at Westminster!

WANT A SOCIALIST GLC?

Don’t Know Who To Shortlist? Not Sure What Policies We Should Fight With?

What’s GLRC Proposing?

These and many other burning questions answered on: WEDNESDAY J4TH MAY, COUNTY HALL (Room 166),

AT 7.00PM

This meeting is after the big London : demo and is a MUST for all party activists who are involved in the GLC selection :

campaign. ee

- BRENT’S INDIAN FASCISTS!

“Tf it were National Front or Ku-Klux Klan members being infiltrated

into the Labour Party, there would be an immediate outcry. Yet these people are no different. The attitude of some Party members on this

question is nothing short of racist.”

Such was the shocked reaction of one Asian community leader this week to the revelation that members of a fascist organisation are being infiltrated—with the active connivance of a group of local right-wingers— into at least one of the three Brent Labour Parties.

The whole affair is threatening to explode into a row of major proportions.

It all began last summer when, at its Annual General Meeting, the Brent Indian Association voted overwhelmingly to exclude an organisation, the Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh (HSS), from its executive committee. It was alleged that the HSS was ‘linked’ to the Indian fascist party, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

DROMEY

Following demands by the Brent Indian Association, Asian party members and local trade unionists, including Jack Dromey of Grunwick fame, the LGC of Brent Labour Party set up a Committee of Enquiry into the nature and activities of the HSS.

The enquiry has been sitting for eight months and is to publish its findings shortly. A perusal of the mass of documegtary evidence submitted however, reveals some pretty disturbing facts.

Not only are the two organisations ‘linked’, it turns out that the HSS is nothing less than the British organisation of the RSS itself! This had been denied at first by the HSS, but a comparison of the constitutions of the two organisations showed that whole sections of the documents were identical word for word. Financial connections have also been uncovered.

The RSS in India has a long history of involvement in communal rioting. Ever since Independence, when hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in the HinduMoslem bloodbath which greeted partition, the RSS has been a by-word for inter-communal terror. More recently, a vicious spate of pogroms against non-- Hindu minorities, Moslems, Christians and low-caste ‘Untouchables’ has been unleashed by the RSS in India. Horrific stories percolating through to the pages of the British press in recent weeks tell of whole villages being put to the torch, with escaping infants and women being

_shot down or thrown alive into the inferno :

PARAMILITARY

It had been argued that the HSS, although ‘linked’ to RSS, was no more than a propaganda front for the Indian organisation. Evidence from HSS internal documents however, show that the HSS in Britain have organised paramilitary train- _ ing camps in this country, one of which has actually been witnessed by BIA members. Manibhai Patel, Chairman of the BIA, was quite unequivocal in his assessment: “They are training up their youth to be a paramilitary force in this country so that they can be used by the RSS,” he said.

What has been the reaction of the Labour Party in Brent? Amid a flood of resolutions from party organisations, mainly from the Brent East CLP, calling for a full enquiry, the initial response of right-wingers who have been closely involved with the HSS was to play the whole thing down.

“They are the kindest, most gentle people I know,” said Councillor Len Snow, Chairman of the borough’s Education Committee who, as Mayor, was responsibly for building up the HSS’s ‘respectability’ by patronising their furetions in recent years. Even with the publication of a whole mass of incontrovertible evidence, Councillor Snow has refused to budge in his support for the HSS. Instead, he has issued thinly-veiled threats against patty members who have raised the issue, including extremely uncomradely attacks in the pages of the local press.

DESPERATE

But even worse was yet to come. With the setting up of the LGC enquiry, who was the right-wing’s nomination to sit on the committee? One was the wife of Councillor Snow, who was accepted. Another was a certain Arjunlal Sharma. Arjunlal Sharma, who LGC members were astonished to find, had become a member of the Labour Party, is no less than the press officer of the Wembley branch of the HSS! Needless to say, he was not accepted

6.

ALF FILER Brent East CLP

onto the committee. But he does remain, for the time being, a member of the Party.

The tactic of the right-wing has been to stall and, apparently, to use the breathing space to infiltrate HSS members into the Party. Suffering, as have, from considerable reverses at this year’s Party AGMs, the right-wing are becomingly increasingly desperate. If what is happening in Brent is any indication, the battle within the Labour Party at national level is set to become a very dirty affair. Let us not have any illusions. If the right-wing are prepared to stoop to recruiting fascists to prop up their waning fortunes what will they stop at?

| What the RSS thought about

Hitler’s Race Theory

“German race pride has now become the topic of the day. To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic races—the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by.

“From this standpoint sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the non-Hindu peoples in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e. they must not only give up their

' attitude of intolerance and ungratefulness towards this land and its age-long traditions, but must also cultivate the positive attitude of love and devotion instead; in one word, they must cease to be foreigners or may stay in the country wholly subordinate to the Hindu nation claiming no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen’s rights.”

M. S. Golwalkar, ‘Supreme Leader’ of the RSS

‘Democracy — Southwark Style!

BOTH DULWICH AND PECKHAM Labour Parties have recently passed motions calling for an independent enquiry by either the London Regional Council or the Party HQ into the activities of the Southwark Labour Group. This call follows the latest moves in the on-going struggle against the SDA-dominated Labour Group.

During the past month or two there have been more ructions than usual in the Group. First of all there were moves from the right-wing to prevent the attendance at Group of the newly-elected Dulwich Liaison Officer, Mick Dalton (who, incidentally, happens to have been a left-winger on the previous council). This was followed at his next meeting by threats from the Group chairperson, Steve Kippin, to “‘do”’ Mick as he leapt across the benches in an attempt to fulfil his promise.

BACKDOOR METHODS

This comradely act was followed a week later by a motion from Council Leader John O’Grady, well-known member of the SDA, to prevent one of the ‘rebels’ from putting his motions to a Group meeting specially convened (by back bench signatures) to consider outstanding motions, most of which came from the Parties. The grounds used by O’Grady for this clearly unconstitutional act were that the member had not followed Group policy on a number of previous occasions. After unsuccessful protest against this backdoor attempt at discipline, a number of councillors left the meeting.

SPECIAL GMC

Sick of being ignored, the Dulwich Party called a special GMC to discuss the relationship between the Labour Group and the Party which resulted in the motion calling for an independent Labour Party enquiry. Many members feel that things have got so bad that there is no longer room to believe that ‘a bit of effort on both sides’ can ever untangle what is clearly a fundamental political rift between the Party and the majority of Southwark councillors, At its ordinary GMC last week, Peckham Party supported Dulwich’s motion and likewise called for an enquiry,

Meanwhile five councillors appeared before the Group for disciplinary proceedings. One member, John Fowler, was accused of asking a question in council

for which the Group had not given permission. The question happened to be about an issue which has had some unfavourable press coverage of late—the Group’s decision to spend a few thousand - pounds on taking its councillors to a.

seminar in Brentwood, held in a Trust House Fortes hotel.

The other four being disciplined were accused of voting against (Alan Davis and George Nicholson) and abstaining (Carol Turner and Jim Wheeler) in Council on the issue of this year’s rates. All five argued correctly that there was no case to be answered under the Group’s own standing orders. This did not deter the right-wing from calling such a meeting, nor did it deter O’Grady from his threat to bring disciplinary action each time any councillor stepped out of line in future.

WINDOW-DRESSING

The result of the evening was no action on all counts. Why bother then? The

CAROL TURNER (Cllr)

right’s intention to make a comeback within the Party was noted by the number of occasions on which O’Grady and the Deputy Leader, Ann Ward, referred to the Labour Party during the discussion around Cllr Fowler’s question in council. Their main concern, they would have us believe, was the embarrassment caused to the Party by the press coverage. (Neither are noted for their reference to the Party when attempting to justify their actions in the past.)

Party activists may be forgiven their cynicism when heard asking if this latest move on the part of Southwark Council’s right-wing is an attempt to window-dress their ragged Party, image with an outfit of tolerant generosity.

To outsiders, it may seem strange that a Labour Council with a majority of 50 to two has had its budget rejected and then only got its amended one through by 26 votes to 24.

now happen. In a period of just over a year Islington has changed from being a progressive borough with the largest housing programme in London and the largest budget for voluntary groups for

borough not just forced into cuts but actually making more cuts than even the government demands!

of 41%, a rent rise of £1.50 and very savage cuts. The package was then found

suggested. This provoked a straight split on the Labour Group and this proposal was defeated by 23 votes to 22 at the Council meeting on March 18th. A number of concessions offered by Council Leader Southgate did not amount to much more than a slight increase in

__ Council housing management and maintenance and a saving of one or two pro-

Nevertheless, such is the sorry state of

ISLINGTON CHAOS

jects. Nevertheless, this was deemed to be sufficient by two or three councillors and the budget was passed at a special Council meeting a week later by the slender margin of two votes!

Such a record can only be considered Islington’s Labour Group that such events disastrous and there can be little doubt

that most leaderships of Labour Groups would have done the ‘decent thing’ and tesigned—but no Islington’s!

Now, to cap everything, a scheme has been announced to sell off a great many

any comparable authority, into being the houses owned by the local authority and

awaiting rehabilitation. This is, for many party members, the final straw. As we go to press a revolt is brewing of some

This year’s budget proposed a rate rise sizeable proportion. A group of at least

20 councillors are considering what to do if this blatant attack on both the policy

to be inadequate and even more cuts were of GLRC and the manifesto that elected

the Islington Labour Party materialises. The local constituency parties and the

LGC have begun to voice opposition and

are preparing to fight. How this develops

remains to be seen. What is clear, however, }-

is that a major confrontation is brewing in Islington.

KEITH VENESS

LETTERS

DEAR COMRADE,

In his article in the first issue of Briefing, Kevin Moore gave a parody of the position against rate increases, and added insult to injury by quoting us as saying “why should the Council cut the income of rate payers in the Borough?” Kevin is well aware of our position, and although he opposes it, it is also the policy of the Princes Branch Labour Party which both he and Neil Turner represent. We can only conclude that he has reasons of his own for this distortion.

What we have repeatedly said is that to pass on Tory cuts in the form of cuts in living standards will penalise the working people of Lambeth. Many Lambeth tenants will have to find as much as £5 per week extra, as a result of the increases in rents, rates and heating charges. Our fear is that as the 1982 elections approach big rate increases will give way to drastic cuts implemented by Labour Councils.

Although we may disagree on tactics, we must always remember that our battle is against the Tories.

Yours fraternally, Neil Turner (Cllr), Steve Stannard (Cllr)

DEAR COMRADE,

At a meeting of the Islington Briefing Supporters Group, the following resolution was passed, and I am sending this on to you:

That this meeting supports the setting up of the London Labour Briefing and would like to suggest the following ideas for discussion

of its editorial board:

1. that the format of Briefing should resemble that of a newspaper—i.e. be of larger size;

2. that there should be a letters page;

3. that the inside double page should be kept as a discussion forum, or platform, for socialist theory and programme.

Typeset by Rye Express (TU) Printed by Anyway Litho (TU)

Concern was expressed that Briefing should not remain merely within the realm of organisation and co-ordination, but should engage the interest of the rank and file by providing space for controversial ideas and issues.

With all good wishes. Yours fraternally, Bert Atkinson

DEAR COMRADE,

To continue the saga of Peckham Labour Party—as was suggested in the last copy of London Labour Briefing, the left are in the majority in Peckham. Within Southwark there are three constituency—Peckham, Dulwich and Bermondsey— all three are now dominated by the left, we now look forward to a year where Labour Party, and in particular conference decisions are carried out.

A vicious campaign has been conducted throughout the country against the YS. Before the YS came to Southwark we were slowly becoming stagnant. What the YS has generated in Peckham is nothing more than healthy politics. They have openly campaigned for greater democracy in the Labour Party (Reg Underhill—please note!), they have campaigned against every injustice that has raised

its head in Peckham, in particular many CLP members are proud of the YS and its stand against racism.

Ihave come to the conclusion that the wind of change is coming to Peckham.

I believe over the next few years we will have a new MP, a new GLC member and a new batch of local councillors.

The right-wing are now running scared, shouting about caucus meetings being conducted. But they can take it from me that there is no need for caucus meetings within the left, because we have always agreed on the common ground we have to fight on.

We have witnessed what a Tory party can do in the GLC and now that they are in government they will conduct a campaign to try and smash the new and healthy Labour Party, the Labour Party is now on the move and no smear campaign by the media will stop it!

"Published by London Labour Briefing 158 Thorold Ré, Iiford, Essex.

The Labour Party must continue to oppose the vicious attacks on the working class, unlike the Tories we take it as a right to decent housing, education and health facilities. The Labour Party will reverse any measures taken by the Tories against the working class.

There is a need to expose the Tories for what they are—a motley bunch of capitalists who want to keep the status quo or even reduce the living standards of the working class.

Inflation is rising so fast that union negotiators must continue to put in massive pay Gjaims to keep up with it. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer (Len Murray—please note!),

The fight is on, but with the policies being put forward from Labour Party conferences we can win so let us go forward on socialist policies and victory will be ours.

Yours fraternally, Danny McCarthy

; Vice-Chairperson, Peckham CLP

LABOUR SCAB!

EXTREME RIGHT-WING Islington Councillor, Sybil James, has been a leading light in the cuts made by the local Council. Now she has gone one better and sponsored a rally by the “Freedom Association” (formerly NAFF) in support of the Sheerness Scabs during the steel strike.

It is quite incomprehensible that the Labour Party can allow one of its public representatives to endorse this sort of blacklegging and an avalanche of resolutions and protests have descended on Islington Central Labour Party demanding they take action against James.

However, as we go to press, it appears that the EC of Islington Central is only recommending that she be “severely censured and debarred from Party office” —in short not much more than the proverbial slap on the wrist!

~ A concerted effort will be made at the next GMC to “beef-up” the proposed action and to get her out of the Party altogether. We will cover these develop- ~ ments in more detail in the next issue | of Briefing. eae