London Labour Briefing no. 61 (with the National Supplement)

APARTHEID!

FEW ISSUES arouse such hypocrisy and wrestling with conscience amongst politicians in Britain as the questions of apartheid and the Pretoria regime. Mrs Thatcher tells us she wants Nelson Mandela released — whilst integrating South Africa into NATO’s defence plans. Trade union leaders call for sanctions, whilst making no serious attempt to rally their members for a campaign of industrial action; and, most nauseating of all, Labour’s leadership mouths platitudes whilst black workers in struggle are gunned down by a regime that

is quite happy to accept moral condemnation as long as it has no serious material opposition directed against it.

However, for the socialists and trade unionists who support Briefing, such hand-wringing is not enough. Black workers inside South Africa need practical support and assistance in destroying this vile regime, and British working class organisations are in a unique position to assist in this. Concretely, we should now be raising money and materials to support the various liberation groups — the ANC, PAC, SWAPO and others — and- we should make this a priority.

They need cash desperately to provide for refugees in London and for the various guerilla organisations based in a number of black African states. It is outtageous that whilst the Botha regime has an arsenal of modern weapons to gun down demonstrators and strikers, young black workers have to wave wooden guns to show us what they need.

Even more specifically, in the heart of London’s Trafalgar Square, we allow the Embassy of South Africa to function and act as a propaganda and organising centre for apartheid. This building must be forced to shut and its occupants booted out. The left must ensure a continuous mass presence outside there at all times.

The arrest for obstruction of prominent MPs like Tony Banks, Jeremy Corbyn and Stuart Holland, the blind mayor of Haringey, cllr Jim Gardiner, and of other London councillors outside the Embassy showed the start of what we need to do. This place must be subject to the maximum harassment and attack until Mandela is released and this

Photo: Paul Mattsson

—_

Demonstration outside South African Embassy. The message is clear: help us remove this obstruction!

disgraceful bunch of gangsters return to South Africa, hopefully for a black government to deal with them.

Anti Apartheid week provides a good opportunity for these kinds of activities, but please, comrades, do not waste it solely by marching on the usual conducted police tour of the West End and by going to a couple of meetings for abstract resolution-mongering.

Having read this article, go immediately to your pocket, purse, handbag, or Piggy-bank, and send in money now. Then resolve to join us outside the

Embassy and shut it down. Get your union to take industrial action against South African goods, get your local council to support this, and declare your borough an ‘Apartheid-Free Zone’. And, most importantly, help mount a real mass campaign of action.

The long agony of the black masses in Southern Africa is drawing to a close. It is in our interest to lend all possible help to bring its end that much nearer.

Keith Veness, Islington North Labour Party

LABOUR— TAKE THE POWER!

London Labour Briefing page 2

STOP SOUTHWARK EVICTIONS!

6.15 am. Tuesday June 10. Riot police and bailiffs in force fighting h people thrown downstairs, police kicking,

crowds pushing, wrestling, that the last eviction took p!

but, disgracefully, by Southwark Labour Council; or more precise!

omeless people and tenants at the Pullens Estate, Southwark . . . flour, water, arrests, live music. It was not until six hours later lace. This was neither Wapping nor a mining village. The state thugs were not sent by Murdoch or Thatcher ly by the right wing of the council who ordered these evictions of 26

flats on the estate before the elections, along with a simultaneous mass eviction of similar size on the Rockingham Estate nearby

On both estates, and on a third nearby estate — Kinglake-Alvey — where similar mass evictions are threatened, the local Tenants Associations oppose the evictions and instead want negotiations with the Council about all or some of the squats and the future of their estates which had all been “hard-to-let” in the past.

At least 12 Labour councillors were out on the streets that morning supporting the squatters’ and tenants’ resistance. The Council’s own UCATT boarding-up teams had refused all along to be used against homeless people and some of the private contractors’ workers walked off the job to wild cheers.

Kinnock backs squatters!

The labour movement in London has now got somewhat tired of the toughguy-macho methods of a section of Southwark Council. The national Labour Party — in nearby Walworth Road — even attempted to get the evictions stopped.

Mass evictions and the use of riot police against homeless people and tenants cannot be part of a socialist housing policy. Some of those councillors who pressed for the evictions might theoretically agree with this but are blinded by their own prejudices and often racist propaganda about homeless people who squat and the now very tarnished icon “the housing waiting list” which is misused to justify almost any action to make people homeless.

Changing reality

However, the magnificent resistance put up by the Pullens Estate community and their supporters has blown many of these myths. On the day of the eviction the Walworth District Housing Committee of Tenants Associations in the district condemned the council’s eviction and stated it no longer had any confidence in the council’s housing allocation system.

Far from being “allocation accords to need” when it comes to situations involving homeless people who squat, the council really operates a suspect allocation system with a discriminatory points system which sets one group of homeless against another.

In Southwark homeless people who squat are told they will get zero points when they apply to be on the waiting list or (if they were on it when they squatted) they will be “suspended” from it. This means that except in rare cases they have no option but to carry on squatting, so it is hardly surprising that the number of squats in Southwark (which has more empties than any other borough) continues to rise — especially when evictions are threatened.

The council has stated it had would-be tenants “preallocated” to move straight into the 26 squats on the Pullens which were evicted. In fact many of them did not turn up or refused to be used to make someone else homeless. On the day of eviction the squatters reoccupied the flats with the support of the Tenants Association. The council only managed

om EX ie

Pullens Estate, during Southwark’s mass evictions of squatters on June 10th.

to get tenants into six flats. The outcome on Rockingham was similar.

Political debate in Southwark’s Labour Group has been particularly hamstrung by the fact that the Group election for the leadership positions have to be confirmed or changed in July, and the Right who called the evictions are attempting to use the issue against the new leader, Anne Matthews, who opposed them.

However, in the party and tenants’ movement, their scheme has backfired. Many wards have condemned the council’s action and the stance of the Chair of Housing, Alan Crane,

poo > ~ pe Se ee ee

who took a Pontius Pilate attitude to the whole affair.

The first thing is for the Labour Group to accept its responsibility for events and 1) stop the threatened third mass eviction scheduled for the Kinglake-Alvey estate; 2) start negotiations with all the tenants associations on the three estates and 3) reintroduce hard-to-let schemes and end the policy of discriminating against homeless people who squat. This way we can begin to get some of Southwark’s tragic housing problems resolved.

Councillor Piers Corbyn

upwdoyy uyor

On Saturday May 3rd, the British National Party, John Tyndall’s racist and fascist organisation, held a “public” meeting in an ILEA primary school in Tower Hamlets. John Scurr School, with a large number of black children and in an area notorious for racist attacks was the school used. Despite an attempt by the ILEA to oppose the letting through the High Court, it was granted under the Representation of the People Act. With only very short notice a large demonstration of over 200 local teachers, parents, members of the Federation of Bangaldeshi Youth Organisations, Labour Party and Trades Council members tried to stop the meeting going ahead. The events of the day have been fairly well documented in letters to the press, but it is clear that the police, far from ensuring that a genuinely public meeting was held, instead colluded with the fascists, allowing them access to the hall by 2 side entrance, restricting the number of demonstrators allowed into the hall to between 30 and 35, although the hall holds 120.

There have been a number of developments since then. A letter from 8 primary school heads

NO FASCISTS IN ILEA

in the area has been sent to Supt Harvey at Bethnal Green Station. The letter states that they support the ILEA’s anti-racist and equal opportunities policies and were very concerned at the long term damage done by the meeting. The letter continues:

“We understand that you are involved in promoting police/school liaison in this area. Having been present on Saturday afternoon and witnessed for ourselves the tactics of the police in dealing with this highly emotive situation, we would like it noted that we feel the whole incident has serious consequences for future relations between the local police and schools.””

The East London Teachers Association (ELTA) has agreed to circulate the facts of the event to all schools in the area and to organise meetings to discuss the policy of the Inner London Teachers Association (ILTA) of keeping police out of the schools. In addition they are demanding of the ILEA that they bring a case against John Tyndall for the damage caused at the school on that day, to start an inquiry into the police management of the incident, to fund the defence of those arrested, and finally and most importantly to refuse to comply with the law in future in line with the ILEA’s anti-racist policy.

The ILEA has set in train its own inquiry and is reviewing its letting proceedures within the existing law. However this is not enough. On

BRIEFING INTERVIEWS

London Labour Briefing page 3

SOUTHWARK COUNCIL LEADER

JANE KELLY for London Briefing interviewed ANNE MATTHEWS, new leader of Southwark Coucil.

JK: Do you think your refusing to make a rate last year was an element in your election?

‘AM: Yes, it was obviously an element, more for new members of the Labour Group rather than older members because quite a bit of my support came from those who were on the council before and who voted to set a rate. My stance is the same; I believe we should fight, but on the basis of an organised campaign with other authorities, and on the basis of having a very tight budget and well planned growth proposals.

JK: Labour lost a number of seats to the Liberals in Bermondsey. Why do you think this, happened?

AM: There are a variety of reasons. Prior to "82 the Labour Party hadn’t done enough in Southwark, particularly with regard to housing. A credible alternative to Labour appeared in Simon Hughes. There was the hideous smear campaign against Peter Tatchell which Simon Hughes encouraged and allowed to continue. Then from ’82 to 86 because we had no clear plan of what we were going to be doing; things did happen but we didn’t do enough. Once Simon Hughes had got in, and despite the fact that the Liberals on the council have been absolutely ineffectual, don’t understand what’s going on and don’t turn up, Simon Hughes turns up everywhere. He’s a very charming young man and a lot of Bermondsey people think he’s great. Most of their leaflets say “Support Simon Hughes — Vote for X, Y and Z”” and it really didn’t matter that X, Y and Z have been dragged out of the hedgerow the night before and won’t come up with anything on the council.

SCHOOLS!

July 3rd there is a by-election in Tower Hamlets, as a result of the invalid election of one of the Liberal candidates. The NF is standing and will inevitably attempt a repeat performance.

First and foremost the ILEA must be forced to face up to the consequences of allowing fascists to use their schools. What does this mean for their anti-racist stance? In the event of another meeting being allowed to go ahead, then ILEA members should stand with the teachers, the Parents, the community groups, Labour Party and Trades Council members to put the ILEA’s anti-racist policy into action.

The two ILEA members for the area, Belle Harris and Dennis Twomey, have put a resolution to the ILEA Labour Group demanding support for the demonstrators and condemnation of the police actions. But this is not enough to stop the whole thing happening again. CLPs all over London should demand of their ILEA members that the issue of fascists in ILEA schools has to be resolved — outside the law if necessary.

Bridget Fagan NUT, John Scurr Primary School

For more information write to ALTARF, (All London Teachers Against Racism and Fascism) Panther House, Room 216, 38, Mount Pleasant, London WCIX OAP.

JK: What is the political colour of the new Council?

AM: I’m quite encouraged by 2 good number of them in that I think they share similar political views to me and will support a strong stand against national government, but will also want to do serious things about equal opportunities for people employed by the council. I feel more comfortable with an amalgam of those sorts of views rather than the split which there did tend to be in the last group, between these two important sets of ideas.

JK: You signed the statement in the May Briefing “We'll Stand Firm”, along with a number of Southwark councillors. Across London 120 of those who signed have been elected. How do you think this can be built on? Are you in favour of organising a conference? AM: Yes, I think there’s no point in any one authority, or even a few authorities deciding to make a stand against the government. I do think it would be worthwhile organising together. It’s the only way.

JK: What issues will local Labour authorities come into conflict with central government over this year?

AM: There's all the stuff about privatisation and how we can defend our workforce and the services they provide. I think it’s important that we are seen not just to maintain jobs and services but to improve them. 60 to 70% of people in Southwark have the council as their landlord and

we're a pretty shoddy one. Unless we can be seen to improve these services then we're not going to get people’s support.

JK: How do you think a campaign of support should be built?

AM: We should establish the estate committees on the major estates where councillors, tenants, workers on the council can actually meet to plan the work that needs to be done. It’s important that if we're serious about decentralisation, people see where the money is, where it needs to go and that they have some control over it. Then they can make demands of us which strengthens our demands on central government and means we're working together.

JK: The last council introduced a “‘get tough” policy with regard to rent arrears. They also had a bad policy on squatting. What is the new council going to do about these areas of policy? AM: What I think it should do and what it wi do may well differ. We need to look closely at rent arrears, not in order to be punitive, but so that people know from week to week what the rent account is like. We do need to be careful of not hounding people for money which isn’t there. If people get a gas or electricity bill and they’re going to get cut off, they’ll leave the rent.

With regard to squatting, at the moment there are three estates where evictions are imminent and all three Tenants’ Associations have said that they do not want a large proportion of the squatters evicted. Many of them have been there for two or three years; it’s their home. We've had such bad control over the housing stock, large numbers of empty properties. People are driven to squat. I think its just macho gesturing of the Labour Group to refuse to listen to what the tenants are saying on whether they want evictions on their estate or not.

JK: There are now a number of women leaders of Labour Groups and Councils, including two black women. Whai do you think is the significance of this?

AM: Women who have been involved in the women’s movement have been allowed to make some mark on the Labour Party. Whether it is generally significant I'm net sure. I know that I have no childcare responsibilities, other than occasionally looking after my flatmate’s toddler. I've got no other caring responsibilities. Unless the Labour Party can significantly change the way in which people need to involve themselves in politics, so that women with responsibilities for children or elderly people or disabled people, can be allowed to participate, then I see myself, in Southwark, as a flash in the pan — and we can usé that together to the advantage of other women and to the advantage of everyone.

STOP PRESS!

Statement made to Labour Briefing by Anne Matthews after the evictions:

I was horrified at the use of police in riot gear at the evictions on Pullens Estate, and the behaviour of some senior police officers which has been reported to me by a Dulwich councillor who was present. We will be taking this matter up with the police. I hope the

parties in Southwark will make clear to the Labour Group that the Manifesto includes a policy of reintroducing hard-toet. I also hope that we will develop a policy for single homeless people, review the points system and speed up the letting of empty flats before we contemplate further evictions of homeless people who occupy empty properties. If this is not achieved the Labour Group may find itself separated from the parties in Southwark.

London Labour Briefing page 4

The local government elections in May were a resounding endorsement for the policies which have been pursued by the Labour Party in Camden. Prior to the election there were 33 Labour Councillors in Camden and 26 Conservatives. The new Council is comprised of 44 Labour Councillors, 13 Conservatives, and 2 Alliance members. By any standards, but especially in the context of the campaign waged against rate-capping in Camden, these results are remarkable.

Prior to the election, it was widely assumed by the national leadership and the media, that the policy of defending local democracy, of refusing to make cuts in jobs and services, and of being prepared to confront the Tory Government on the basis of these policies, would alienate potential Labour voters. Far from this being the case, and in spite of the massive media campaign waged against the Left, it has been shown that Labour controlled Councils who are prepared to stand by their principles, and to act on their beliefs, can win an increase in support from the electorate.

However, the victory in Camden has been soured by the most cynical and unprincipled abuse of power by a small majority of Councillors on the new Labour Group.

Tt had been agreed, largely as a result of ten renegades on the previous Labour Group voting with the Tories in order to set a rate, that the incoming Councillors after the May elections, would be subject to a far greater degree of supervision by the entire Party. This was accepted as both fundamental to Party democracy and fundamental to Party involvement by all levels of the labour movement in Camden. The principle had been accepted and endorsed by the previous Labour Group, including the ten renegades, both Constituency Parties, and the Local Government Committee. The key element to this increased involvement and supervision was to be the election of Labour Group Officers and Council Committee Chairs by a joint meeting of the new Labour Group and the Local Government Committee.

Lack of Regard for Democracy

Even prior to the May elections, the Right had begun to display their toal lack of regard for Party democracy. It was clearly stated policy that none of the ten renegades should be selected by Branches as Labour ,Party candidates. Six of these Councillors stood down. Mary Cane and Gill Green, who would almost certainly have been rejected by their previous Branch Parties, ran to the safety of rightwing Branches. Similarly, Roy Shaw and Mike Kirk were only able to remain as candidates because their Branches were prepared to ignore the mandate of the Party. In another move, perhaps even more cynical, right wingers who had been rejected as

CAMDEN: THE ABUSE OF POWER

candidates by the Local Government Committee on the grounds that they were unsuitable, appealed to the Regional Executive and were reinstated onto the Panel.

The selection process itself followed a similar pattern: branches with right wing majorities invariably selecting hard right candidates.

During the election campaign itself, the Right, masquerading as the Campaign Group (?) organised a series of election meetings which excluded Left candidates from platforms and built support for their own candidates. Similarly, caucus meetings were held in order to both marginalise left candidates and to build up a slate of Councillors for the leadership positions on the incoming Labour Group.

Hard Right Broadens Base

It was at this stage that the hard right needed to broaden their base, and they began to approach centre candidates on the previous Labour Group, offering both their support and their endorsement for these Councillors provided that they agreed to back hard right candidates for key positions against left-wingers. They also began attacking left candidates in the local press under the title of the Fulham Faction (?).

It was in this way that an unholy alliance between the hard right — a mixture of Eurocommunists and old guard Labour Party members — and the centre of the incoming Labour Group began to develop. The centre, most notably a triumvirate comprising Tony Dykes, Alan Woods and Julie Fitzgerald, who had voted with the Left during the ratecapping campaign, were placed in a difficult position. The principles of democracy and acountability, which they had endorsed as previous members of the Labour Group, clearly contradicted their desire for power on the incoming Group. It was obv.ous that any attempt on their part to attain positions of authority would be dependent on the support of the hard right, and on their rejection of any decisions that they disagreed with which were taken at the joint Labour Group/Local Government Committee meeting.

The joint Labour Group/LGC meeting was held on May 10th, again against a backdrop of press accusations by the right against the left. By this point they were calling themselves the Broad Left (?), presumably on the grounds that if they used enough different titles the left in Camden wouldn’t be able to call itself anything.

Prior to the meeting, Ken Hulme, a new hard right Councillor, demanded that he and other new Councillors were allowed to have two votes. This was on the grounds that he had been his Branch’s LGC delegate and they had not yet selected someone to replace him! Additionally, Julie Fitzgerald moved that the voting should be by secret ballot, on the grounds that new membes of the Council might be intimidated — so much for open and democratic decision making!

Both these requests were agreed, on the basis that if all the Right’s wishes were granted, it would be impossible for them to reject the decisions that were then taken.

The results of the joint meeting produced neither an overwhelming victory for either the right or the left. In effect, the balance of the Council probably reflected the overall views of the party, with both right and left wingers voted into positions. It was agreed amongst the left, which comprised 21 of the 44 Labour Group members, that these decisions should be endorsed even where an obvious right winger had

been elected.

The meeting to endorse these decisions was held on May 12th. A move that the joint Labour Group/LGC decisions be formally endorsed by the Labour Group was greeted by vociferous opposition from the right, most notably by Alan Woods — who had once proposed barricading the Town Hall against the imminent District Auditor! John Braggins, the Labour Party Regional Officer, was wheeled outby the right to state that the joint decisions were unconstitutional, and that the Labour Group could not be held to them! He even denied knowledge that joint meetings were held already, and had been held for years, in London Boroughs as dispirate as Brent, Hackney, Islington and Lewisham.

The right then proceeded to oppose all those Positions to which the Left had been elected at the joint meeting.

In all, a dozen positions were challenged and in six of these the right were successful in overturning the joint Labour Group/LGC decisions. There was no apology offered, or explanation: they simply got rid of those Councillors that they did not agree with.

Kate Allen, the first woman Leader of Camden, was replaced by Tony Dykes; Satnam Gill, one of the three newly elected Black Councillors, was replaced as Chair of the key Policy and Resources Committee by Julie Fitzgerald; Kevin McDonnell was replaced as Assistant Chief Whip by Janet Pope, and was then replaced as Vice-Chair of Policy and Resources by the same person; Tom Devine was replaced as Vice Chair of Housing Management by Gareth Smythe; and Gloria Lazenby was replaced as Vice Chair of Leisure by Dave Horan. Perhaps the worst insult was reserved for Satnam Gill: having been replaced as Chair of Policy and Resources, he then stood as Chair of Camden’s Race Committee — the first black person ever eligible to stand for this position — and was defeated. The voting throughout these bogus elections was uniform, the right wing being able to count on a slim majority of the 43 Councillors present, The political results were appalling.

Centre-Right Administration

A centre-right administration has emerged in Camden; wholly dependent for its legitimacy on a handful of renegades who should not even have been allowed to represent the Party in May’s elections. It is as though the Parliamentary Labour Party had suddenly declared that it would not accept the entire movement's decision on the leadership of the Party and had imposed their own candidate on the rest of the Party. The most depressing aspect is not the behaviour of the hard right — we have come to expect a total disregard for the principles of democracy and accountability from them — but from the careerists and cynical opportunists who now comprise the public leadership of Camden Council.

As a footnote, it is worth stating that the right are now circul: two resolutions in the Party. The first proclaims the independence of the Labour Group from the Local Government Committee; and the second proclaims the independence of the Labour Group from the trade unions and the community organisations who made up the backbone of the campaign against ratecapping.

Woody Haut Steven Taylor Hampstead & Highgate CLP

Wapping: build on the ballot victory:

FLEET STREET!

“Which way forward now?” was the crucial question posed by the results of the secret ballot of the 6,000 sacked print workers at Wapping on the deal said by Rupert Murdoch to be his “final offer’’.

In a result which confounded almost every commentator on the dispute the NGA members voted 648 against and 165 in favour of the deal, the AEU voted 112 against and 56 in favour and, in the most surprising vote of all, the members of the majority union SOGAT 82. voted 2,081 against and 1,415 in favour of the deal.

This remarkable vote is a tribute to the local chapel and branch leaderships and the active militant print workers from the picket lines who fought so hard for a principled vote in defence of jobs and to reject the lay-off offer.

Their jubilance at the results was in sharp contrast to Brenda Dean’s television performance, where she looked as if she was announcing a major defeat.

It could hardly be more important for the whole labour movement that those who fought for this successful result build on it by developing a new way forward which can lead to a victory in the dispute, which is now in its 20th week.

Brenda Dean and the SOGAT Executive know that the local leaderships have the ability to do this. No sooner was the result announced than the SOGAT NEC voted to move a resolution to the SOGAT

Conference which would place the control of the dispute entirely in its hands. That was not all. The seven point

LABOUR— TAKE THE POWER!

{ {

witt_OUR SHEETING. ERI oy

A gRouR ‘ore PRINT WORKERS

STAY" CauM..a:0 WET AREY DETERMINED *“To ‘ane! Hawe l MESsage OF sotipaRtty, Frod WN NEW ZeabaND.

By Alan Thornett

resolution went on to call for the dispute to be prosecuted by all means ‘‘consistent with ensuring the maintenance of SOGAT as an independent Trade Union’? — a policy which would trap the dispute within its print strategy, which is clearly inadequate to win the dispute.

Since then, the results of the Conference have created a serious problem for the dispute. There was rank and file pressure on Dean which eventually forced her to

recognise that the NI dispute was about jobs and not compensation — which had been her consistent position; but the decisions the Conference took over the conduct of the dispute are politically disastrous. However, this pales into insignificance against the fact that the Executive motion was carried unanimously after what have been described as ‘behind the scenes negotiations’? between the London Branch and the EC.

Briefing National Supplement page 2

FLEET St. (continuen)

It is now union policy adopted by Conference not to do anything which would infringe the law and lead to the sequestration of union funds and to place the control of the dispute in the hands of the NEC.

This comes at a time when the clear implication of the ballot results was that the dispute should be escalated by involving the rest of Fleet Street and other SOGAT members doing work associated with NI production.

There were no resolutions at Conference on this. Instead a number of resolutions were adopted calling for picketing to be stepped up at ‘Wapping, for a campaign on the expulsion of the EETPU from the TUC, and for a stepping up of the boycott campaign.

Whilst all these measures are important they will not win the dispute.

‘The London branches and the militant printers running the picket lines surely cannot settle for this? They are the ones who have been the driving force of the dispute up to now. They are the ones who so successfully campaigned for the successful ballot result. They are the ones who should keep democratic control of the dispute and forge a way forward which can break the present deadlock.

“Wreckers”

Nothing else makes sense. Brenda Dean opened the conference by calling the London branches ‘‘wreckers’’ and it ended with a unanimous vote to give the NEC control of the dispute.

The control of the dispute should be in the hands of the rank and file of the three unions involved.

The NGA leadership have taken a stronger stand than Brenda Dean. They did at least recommend a ‘“‘no” vote in the ballot. But an important factor in that was the regular meeting of all those in dispute which has allowed the rank and file to make their voice heard.

All this is worse when considered against the remarkable commitment to the dispute by the vast majority of those involved. When was there a dispute of this magnitude with such a high percentage of members involved in picketing? It is probably unique!

It is not so surprising when looked at against the proud history of the trade unions on Fleet St. They have a history not only of supporting themselves but of supporting other sections of workers under attack from both the law and the employers.

Now they are under attack — and it is an attack which involves all Fleet St workers — not just as a principle but because of the clear implications of what a defeat at NI would mean for the whole of the newspaper industry.

Our rejection of Murdoch’s £50 million bribe is a vital step forward in our struggle to defend our jobs and conditions, and to maintain traditional trade unionism in the print industry. It also exposes the myth that we would sell our principles rather than continue the fight.

If the strikers had accepted the bribe, this would have meant a scabs’ charter, allowing employers to dismiss workers in any industry and replace trade unionists with subservient scabs. Our decision represents our determination to challenge the right of bosses to beat us down and to destroy our jobs for ever.

The ‘no’ vote has also exposed that the SOGAT leadership is isolated from the rank and file. It is a kick in the teeth for the ‘new realism’ of Brenda Dean, Nor-

Print workers march to the picket at Wapping

Photo: Ian Swindale

man Willis and Neil Kinnock.

Printworkers have supported the struggles of other workers both industrially and financially — such as health workers, miners, post office workers and teachers. We shall continue to do so, as a principle of workers’ unity. We call for solidarity action now to protect the working class movement.

*Invite strikers to workplace meetings.

*Call for solidarity action of workplaces.

*Step up support for picketing at Wapping and elsewhere.

*Demand the printworkers’ case is a priority for the whole movement.

Larry Hyett, (Chair, Union of Print Support Groups)

DEMONSTRATE! Against Apartheid

Saturday June 28

Assemble 11.00am at Hyde Park

March to Clapham Common

NEXT ISSUE

Our next issue will be a pilot issue for the projected new fortnightly Briefing. It is due out on July 8th and articles should be sent into 162 Millfields Road, London ES OAE by 30th June.

OUR PRINTERS

‘As we attempt the transition to a fortnightly paper, we say goodbye — for the moment — to our printers, Wernham. To Bernie and Phil, we say thank you for your help, support and understanding over the past 4-5 years.

We urge all our supporters and labour movement organisations to use Wernhams, We know you will get the same excellent service as we have received.

All enquiries to Wernhams of 4 Forster Road, Tottenham N17, tel: 01-808 1677.

Page! Cartoon by Dave Bangs, Banner Maker, 73 Whidborne Buildings, Tonbridge Street, London WC1, tel: 985 5674.

Briefing National Supplement page 3

The Lambeth 31: Defended Jobs & Services Now in Need of Your Help

Councillors Face Bankruptcy

On April 2nd thirty one Lambeth Labour Councillors were banned from holding council office. Severe financial penalties were imposed upon them:

In the High Court they were ordered to pay £106,000 surcharge plus £100,000 for the District Auditor's legal costs.

This was their harsh reward for refusing to make cuts in jobs or services in one of London's poorest boroughs.

Leading Labour

Elected in 1982 this new group of Labour Councillors came to power in Lambeth with a clear policy of NO CUTS. They built homes, created jobs and implemented radical policy initiatives in areas such as Equal Opportunities and community development, leading the way for local authorities all over the country.

Tory Cuts

They did this against a background of increasingly savage cuts in funding to local councils as Thatcher sought to decimate the activities of all those opposed to her.

The attack on local government culminated in 1984 when Lambeth, along with 17 other authorities, was “‘ratecapped”’, a policy which sought finally to impose £13 million of cuts in the borough.

Lambeth Fightback

No Socialist council could implement those cuts. So, following the national policy of the Labour Party and of the local unions, Lambeth joined with 8 other councils and refused to set a rate until sufficient resources became available to fund necessary jobs and services.

Lambeth Councillors held out and no cuts were made.

Retribution

The Tories’ retribution was harsh. Lambeth’s Labour Councillors have been ordered to repay their massive fines at arate of £5,000 a month.

Sould they default on payment the penalty is clear: person! fiancial ruin, bankruptcy and bailiffs at the door. These huge sums are obviously way beyond the means of any small group of working class people.

Consequently Lambeth Labour Group are appealling to others for help. They are being punished for standing up against the Government on behalf of ordinary people in their community.

It is now time for the Labour Movement to come forward and stand up for them. Don’t let the Lambeth 31 down.

Please complete and return the standing order form.

To invite a surcharged/disqualified councillor to speak at your union or party meeting contact the Fighting Fund.

Lambeth Fighting Fund £5000 a month to

pay

STANDING ORDER AUTHORITY

Bank Name ..

Bank Address ....

Account Number ... wee a I hereby give authority to the payment of the following standing order from my current account:

Please pay The Lambeth Fighting Fund, Account No.

90009364, Sorting Code 77-91-09, The Trustee Savings Bank, Brixton Branch, 18 Acre Lane, Brixton, London SW2 5SQ the sum of £. . on the .......... day of each month, commencing on . and on the same day each month until further notice.

Date ... ... Signature ...

Thank you for your support. Please return immediately to Lambeth Fighting Fund, c/o Chief Whip, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, London SW2.

Badges, Booklets, Tankards and Video! Please return this form to order. Please send:

Badges (Sack Tory Judges, Not Labour

Councillors) @ £2.50 for 10. fie

Copies of ‘The Battle for Lambeth’’ (36 pages) @ £1 each. [3

Copies of “Councils for the Defence’’ (20 minute video by the makers of ‘‘The Battle for Orgreave’’) @ £10 a copy. £.

Total: £.

Please make cheques payable to Lambeth Fighting Fund and return to:

Lambeth Fighting Fund, c/o Chief Whip’s Office, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, London SW2.

Lambeth Fighting Fund, c/o Chief Whip’s Office, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton, London SW2

Briefing National Supplement page 4

had any connection with Militant.

Roy Hattersley spoke at the GC meeting prior to their expulsions and called for the ‘boil to be lanced’. Ken Cure heard their appeal and recommended that it should be rejected. Both Hattersley and Cure attended the Appeals and Mediations Committee and voted to recommend to the NEC that the appeal should be rejected. This was passed by 3 votes to 2. The NEC then voted by 13 votes to 12 to reject the appeals with both Hattersley and Cure voting for rejection. Such behaviour was in breach of the rules of natural justice.

As Larry Whitty told the Guardian, lon the same day, the rules are not ‘adequate to restrain authoritarian moves by sections of the Party who happen to be in control at any particular time, lor to protect the individual in the Party from injustice.”

The NEC have usually refused alleged members of Militant legal representation and the right to call witnesses, and have cloaked their activities in secrecy by doing away with recorded votes. The successful legal challenges have bought time which should allow all sections of the Party to consider a more constructive way forward.

The balance of forces inside the Party is such that resistance to the witch hunt must be coupled with a practical way forward which will make it more likely that the Rules will be applied impartially. This could be achieved by the application of the Rules being transferred from the NEC to an elected independent appeal body. Such a body would seek to act on the basis of consensus and develop a long term approach based on tolerating the right to associate, but would not permit the breach of Rules which were both clear and understood. No one should be expelled without warning on the basis of an arbitrary interpretation of the Rules. Unless such an alternative is available Kinnock will use his majority on the NEC, and at Conference, to continue the witch hunt.

Meanwhile, there are a number of ways that the current expulsions can be resisted. The right of those, like Scally and Khan, who have had their appeals disallowed by the NEC, to have their cases reported to Conference must be established beyond doutt, and delegates must be prepared to move reference back of those sections of the INEC Report.

The argument that the expulsions are not only wrong but a damaging

FIGHTING THE WITCH-HUNT

The expulsion of Derek Hatton and the decision, by 13 votes to 12, to refuse to reinstate Kevin Scally and Amir Khan are better reflections of attitudes in the NEC than the endorsement of Pat Wall. Kevin Scally had spoken to the press about membership irregularities after attempting for a year to resolve the matter internally. Amir Khan had taken part in meetings of Black members in his area. Both were members of Roy Hattersley’s constituency, Birmingham Sparkbrook, and neither|

Tony Mulhearn and Derek Hatton: facing up to the witch-hunt

distraction must be brought up in every Party forum because expulsions will occur when the perceived benefits outweigh the disadvantages. The Constituencies and unions must be convinced that expulsions will benefit neither the Party nor sectional interests. Expulsions are seen as popular with the press and voters.

The way the leadership are using the opportunity to change policies, with the help of those who have replaced loyalty to Socialist policies with loyalty to the leadership, must be understood. The temporary nature of press support must be explained. At the General Election, the Party could either be undermined by the divisions arising from mass expulsions or claims that the Party remains dominated by Militant, or both. The ‘evidence’ will come from Kinnock and others in the Party, not those who are standing against the Party. Quotations from the Leadership will be used to attack the Party — as was the case in 1983.

Information on expulsions, and the damage which they are doing must continue to be available. Resolutions, meetings, and publicity should be used to focus on the issue both in the Constituencies and unions.

Criticism of

NEC witch hunters should extend from the Constituencies

into the unions’ Broad Lefts. The NUR, T&GWU, and NUPE are all opposed to witch hunts but their NEC representatives are not in line with their union’s policies.

Kevin O’Reilly (Legal Adviser, CLPD)

THE NEED

The need for a concerted campaign against the witch-hunt can no longer be in doubt. The maximum publicity around the extent of the attacks on socialists in the Labour Party — Militant, Black Sections and Briefing supporters plus a number of individuals — and on defending the right of those with views different to the Party leadership to speak out and organise if necessary, must be sought between now and Party Conference.

If the disastrous Trade Union and Party Regional Conferences are anything to go by, there will be resolutions to expel anyone selling or supporting Militant at Party Conference. Only Women’s Conference, Young Socialists Conference and the Black Sections AGM stand out as clearly opposed to the witch-hunt. Sections of the TGWU General Council have fought to overturn that union’s clear policy against the witch-hunt and are blocking Ron Todd from speaking out in the manner he did at their Bienniel Delegate Conference in 1985.

The Party NEC is concentrating on the

Seven months after being expelled from Birmingham Sparkbrook Constituency Labour Party my appeal against expulsion was finally rejected by the NEC on June 9th. My crime? I had appeared ona Channel 4 documentary programme which showed that there werc largescale membership irregularities in the CLP. There has been no suggestion that I was a member of Militant or even a Trotskyist. In fact my only sectional affiliation in 17 years membership of the party has been in the Labour Committee for Freland and the CLPD. The expulsion and that of Councillor Amir Khan for forming a Black Section, clearly shows that the NEC is after more than just Militant. It shows that the clock is now turning back towards the 1950s when the NEC conducted a McCarthyite witch-hunt against left wing individuals and constituencies. It is clear that many right wing CLPs wiil see this as the green light for more expulsions of left-wingers.

Amir was expelied for forming a Black Section in Sparkbrook in direct contravention to the views of Roy Hattersley. Both of us will continue to campaign for te-admissicn and for an independent inquiry into Sparkbrook. In Birmingham alone the campaign for an independent inquiry is gaining momentum. Ken Livingstone has said, “Sparkbrook is a rotten borough. Kevin and Amir have been expelled for bringing the party intu disrepute by supporiing a black section and appearing on television in order to oppose the Sparkbrook mafia’s attempt to’ block the creation of a Black Section’. Many left wing councillors, including Trades Council Secretary and Sparkbrook councillor Mick Rice, have backed the call for an independent inquiry. In a very right wing city this is very significant. it is almost three years since the mass recruitment was started by right wingers

Militant. There was a rumour that sections of the NEC were moving to oppose the expulsion of comrades Khan, Scally and Rafique from Birmingham, in order to stop any broad front against the witch-hunt and begin the “‘salami”” tactic, slicing off Militant first.

Although this has not succeeded in blocking the expulsions of the Birmingham comrades, we still need to work to ensure that Militant are not isolated, and point out that the attacks on Militant are more to do with their record on at least attempting to defend local government than to do with the fact that they are better organised than most.

We should also be honest and call for a recognition of the right of socialists to organise within the Party — we’re asking for no more than is granted to the Fabian Society, the Co-op Party and the British wing of the Israeli Labour Party, Poale Zion. The right wing of the Party organises through Labour Solidarity, in which there are many leading MPs — but that, of course, is acceptable to Mr Kinnock. Similarly,

HATTERSLEY'S PURGE

in Sparkbrook. At one ward meeting in December 1983, I as secretary, was handed 160 membership applications, many more than the usual number. An investigation by the ward executive revealed that about half of these were fraudulent. The intention behind such recruitment was an attempt to bolster Hattersley’s position in the re-election baitle due in 1984.

Amir Khan

We were able to show that applications came from addresses which did not exist, from people who did not exist, and from individuals who protested that they hadn't wanted to join the Labour Party in the first place and hadn’t signed an application form! Our demands to have toe matter independently investigated were rejected — not surprisingly since it is clear to me that such an investigation would have ended up pointing the finger at Roy Hattersley. Having unsuccessfully fought for eighteen months to have an investigation I reluctantly appeared on television and produced my evid-

FOR A CONCERTED CAMPAIGN «.-

Briefing should not pretena that it does not organise — how else could you produce a monthly paper? We should simply explain that the history of the Party entitles us to do so.

The Witch-Hunt Conference on June 21 provides an excellent opportunity to launch an ongoing campaign against the purge. The organising meetings have seen fraught arguments, with Socialist Action arguing against any ongoing campaign against the witch hunt (presumably because they are against any campaign of the left that is still moving leftwards — witness their wrecking role in Labour Left Co-ordination and the Labour Committee on Ireland).

Yet without the widest possible campaign, reaching into the unions in particular, we will face massive defeat at Party Conference. So the continued lobbies of the National Executive; Left MPs speaking out; the production of WitchHunt News; preparations for the Blackpool Conference and beyond, require such an ongoing campaign.

John Chapman

Briefing National Supplement page 5

Kevin Scally, Sparkbrook CLP

ence. The constituency responded by expelling me. Amir Khan was expelled the same evening, but our experiences are linked in more ways than that. Both of us were part of a left that challenged the paternalistic relationship of the local party to black people. Amir formed a Black Section so that black people could collectively fight the discrimination they face. The white right-wing wanted to do things for black people and then use them as voting fodder in internal eleciions. The Sparkbrook left believed that black people can do things for themselves and that they are not clients of ambitious white politicians. For believing that in Sparkbrook you face expulsion.

abour Democracy Campaign has been set up by the left in Birmingham following the expulsions of Kevin and Amir. They would be grateful for sponsorship, money and messages of|

/o Bernie Wilde, 293 Clifton Road, Balsall Heath, Birmingham 12. Tel: 021-236 8323 (daytime); 021-777-8588 Kevening).

. notes the NEC inspired enquiry into| Liverpool District Labour Party over the alleged| irregularities and the resulting expulsion oj those attempting to implement purty policy against Tory cuts.

It also notes the longstanding dispute over] membership irregularities in Birmingham Sparkbrook CLP and the expuision of two members who highlighted the issue.

It notes the different NEC attitude towards| these two cases and calls for an independent! enquiry into Sparkbrook CLP.

We also note the expulsion of Kevin Scally and Amir Khan on June 9th and call for their| immediate reinstatement.

The NEC, under the spurious grounds of wishing to avoid having legal action taken against local Constituency Parties, are now to publish a “procedure for parties to follow when taking disciplinary action’. All told, the investigation into Liverpool District. Labour Party, the special meetings, the expulsions, the legal fees, the accommodation costs, the publication of the reports, etc., are estimated to have cost the Labour Party £100,000! Just think what an effective campaign against unemployment, or nuclear weapons, or simply in membership recruitment could have been carried out if the real figure is anywhere near this amount. It is time to start asking if our subs are being put to the best use!

As Briefing goes to press, we don’t know the result of the latest round of Liverpool “hearings”’. Whatever the outcome, we give our full support to those Parties who refuse to accept the expulsions of their members and Councillors.

nS

Briefing National Supplement page 6

WHO DO WE SUPPORT FOR TREASURER

Last month’s Briefing National Steering Committee discussed elections at Labour Party Annual Conference — among them, the election for National Treasurer. We were unable to reach a decision on which to support out of Gavin Strang and Ken Livingstone.

We have asked both candidates to send us a statement of the political basis on which they are standing for the NEC, which we now print

STRANG?

Labour can win power at the general election on a radical and socialist programme. It is simply not true that the electorate will prefer the party which projects the most moderate image. The existence of the SDP-Liberal alliance makes it all the more necessary for Labour to campaign on the radical policies which this country so desperately needs.

Support in the Labour Party for a defence policy which makes a complete break with the bi-partisan approach of successive governments has never been stronger. If we give a clear lead on the need for a government that removes all nuclear weapons from British territory during the next parliament we can start to win votes on the defence issue.

*AIBAQIT OV0Ud “41

Last year’s annual conference voted overwhelmingly for a composite resolution instructing the NEC to mount a campaign to build support for a nonnuclear defence policy. We should not wait until the run up to the next general election before we start the process of educating Labour MPs, party activists and potential Labour voters on a policy which must involve a decisive diversion of resources from military to civil production and services.

Annual conference is the supreme policy making organ of the party. Last year’s vote on composite 70 which called for ‘a halt to the nuclear power programme and a phasing out of all existing plants’ was clear-cut. This year

LIVING

I see the role of treasurer as a campaigning role — during the miners’ strike the treasurer should have led a national campaign to raise funds for the miners and should now be doing the same for the surcharged councillors as well as spearheading the drive to raise funds to campaign for our policies.

There has been much priase for the campaigning techniques of the GLC but these campaigns were based on getting across firmly socialist policies in a popular style.

John Chapman

We must build positive support for the policies of intervention in the economy that can bring down unemployment. We need substantial expansion of public services. We must make it clear that such programmes can only be funded by the control and direction of capital. We need to break the grip of the multinationals.

CND has produced a revulsion at the escalation of nuclear terror, The Labour Party must reach the same people, to convince them that a party with a defence policy based on the scrapping of Polaris, the withdrawal of Cruise and the cancellation of Trident is worth voting

we should achieve a two thirds majority for that policy.

The economic case for a dominant role for coal in our energy economy has always been overwhelming. After Chernobyl there is no electorally acceptable alternative.

Labour's destiny should be to secure a return to full employment in this country. ‘A Labour government which secures a million new full-time jobs in two years will be a significant advance. We still need an economic strategy for full employment. The failure of the Conservative government to use the North Sca oil revenues to massively increase investment in our manufacturing industries has done incalculable harm to the prospects for higher living standards for working people in this country throughout the next decade. Regardless of the future price of oil, the reversal of Britain’s industrial decline can only be achieved within the framework of a major expansion of public ownership and investment.

Investment in manufacturing industry is crucial to this country’s future but it is not the most effective way to create work in the short-

JNE OR

Millions fear the attacks on benefits. We must turn that resentment into positive support for expanding and democratising the welfare state.

The party should unite around such policies rather than assuming that we can win by watering them down. Reaching out to those we have ignored in the past requires confronting racism and sexism wherever it occurs. Black sections should be recognised as autonomous bodies with the right to affiliate at all levels. The party must fully agree to the constitutional changes proposed by WAC.

We must introduce the following organisational changes:

*A major drive to establish thousands of workplace branches.

*An immediate drive to increase membership reaching out to involve women, the elderly, young people, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and lesbians and gay men.

*Regional officers to spend their time campaigning rather than policing the party.

*A range of regional and national fund-raising events, using party supporters in the arts.

*Integrating the use of the Parliamentary Labour Party in general party campaigns and putting more resources into the targeting of key constituencies.

To achieve these ends party members need to be involved as they were during the miners’ struggle. That requires that the NEC campaigns for the policies of conference, firmly resisting witch-hunts.

Ihave always opposed expulsions from the party, withdrawals of the whip from Labour Groups and the exclusion of individuals from panels of candidates. I see no reason to change that position.

Ken Livingstone

term, The next Labour government must create hundreds of thousands of new full-time jobs in education, health and public transport services as well as in the construction industry.

The Treasurer of the Labour Party has a responsibility to devote a substantial part of his time to securing more resources for the party and to playing a part in ensuring that they are used effectively to improve Party organisation at national, regional and local Jevel.

All the Labour Party resources and more are needed to win victory at the general electjon, We should learn from the successful political fund campaign and help ‘Trade Union: ists for Labour’ make a real grass-roots impact throughout the country.

We must improve organisation and cam: paigning at constituency and branch level,

However merely streamlining organisation or a quantitative increase of campaigning is not in itself sufficient. Greater involvement in the policy making process by party’s members and potential members is equally vital. Many o! these come from the sections of our society which in addition to being disadvantaged by

Briefing National Supplement page 7

BLACK SECTIONS FOR THE NEC

Two prominent Black Sections supporters will be seeking nominations to contest the CLP section of Labour’s National Executive at the annual conference in Blackpool. The Black Sections National Committee has agreed to support the candidacy of Russell Proffitt (PPC, Lewisham East) and Narendra Makanji (National Secretary of Black Sections, Hornsey/ Wood Green), alongside that of Diane Abbott who will be contesting the women’s section. This move has assumed greater importance since the cynical and racist carving out of TGWU deputy general-secretary Bill Morris. The NEC is assured of at least one black member for 1986/7 — Militant supporter Linda Douglas representing the Young Socialists.

——,

3) Sa

Narendra Makanji

The main platform of the three Black Section candidates will be the immediate implementation of the demand that Black Sections should be established in all constituencies where black members want these with full rights of representation on GCs, regional conferences and the national executive. Election of any or all of these three will also spell t-.e end of the failed Advisory Committee and ensure that the black perspective is fully reflected in all the decision-making processes of the Labour Party.

their class position are also discriminated against because of gender or colour. The party must adopt measures to ensure more adequate representation of women and Black people at every level of its organisation. It must recognise the tight of its Black members to organise themselves in Black sections when they so desire and it must meet the demands of the National Conference of Labour women. This alone will significantly increase the credibility of our claim to represent the interests of all the under privileged members of our society.

Last, but not least, a purge of the party could only be damaging in the Jong run. A united party is vital to ensure Labour's victory at the next general election. Nothing should ‘stand in the way of the overriding priority.

Gavin Strang

The record of the NEC over the past years in combatting racism is quite appalling. The Jobs and Industry campaign made no reference to the disproportionately high levels of unemployment in the black communities nor did it mention the racism faced by those in work; the nearest was euphemistic mention of “inner cities”. This has been compounded by the deliberate exclusion of anti-racism in the so-called “Freedom and Fairness” cam-

John Chapman.

Diane Abbott

paign. The ad agency made sure that no black faces appeared in the images, as if

For a National Regroupment of the Labour Left

At the Briefing fringe meeting of the Greater London Labour Party AGM, Tony Benn made a specific reference to whether Neil Knnock should be replaced as Labour leader before the next election. On previous occasions, such as at the Alliance for Socialism rally, Benn had rejected the idea of a challenge to Kinnock on the grounds that this would “personalise” the political issues. This time, however, he rejected running against Kinnock because it would be appearing to foster disunity in the eyes of the unemployed, the poor, etc.: those that he said were not politically active but who desperately need a Labour government.

Such an argument seems flawed, on at least two counts. Firstly Benn seems to be motivated by the very electoralism he criticised at the same meeting. While, to be sure, there are no conditions I would want to place on the return of a majority Labour government, this is not the same as being indifferent to the programme or composition of such a government. We cannot subordinate the struggle for politics and leaders within the Party to the dubious notion of electoral credibility, when in fact winning the election is centrally related to having the correct policies and leaders who will implement them. The same goes for the support activists have given to workers in struggle, such as the miners or printers, which equally cannot be sacrificed on the altar of electoral cretinism. The manufacturers of public opinion may claim for their own reasons that the movement's support for workers in dispute harms the Labour Party’s election chances: in fact, the opposite is true. The miners’ strike was the key turning-point in the collapse in support for the government.

More specifically, is it the campaigns of the left or the attacks of the right which are “disuniting”’ the Labour Party? Should the leadership be allowed a free hand on which to

the million black voters did not have any political rights or aspirations.

Two members of the NEC representing CLPs have consistently refused to listen to the arguments and demands of black members. Also, by their actions in supporting the witch-hunt, comrades Blunkett and Meacher have set up the scene in which people such as Cllr, Amir Khan and Cllr Mohammed Rafiq of Birmingham have been expelled by the NEC. Their only “crime” was to seek representation for black people which has been denied by the barons of rotten boroughs such as Roy Hattersley.

Black members of the NEC will also ensure that there is no double talk by Party leadership on issues such as immigration and nationality. Whilst promising to repeal these racist laws to black audiences, senior members of the shadow cabinet have gone around making speeches that there will be no real changes under a Labour government.

Black Sections supporters are determined to put a stop to all this!

S. Sabaratnam, Treasurer, Labour Party Black Sections

dictate the terms on which unity is achieved? Before the call for a challenge to Kinnock and Hattersley is labelled divisive, it should be remembered that it is the leadership that is pursuing the witch-hunt, junking Party policy and writing its own along the way.

For the left in the Party to duck this problem on the grounds of Party unity is a little fraudulent. There is far more that the leaders of the left should be doing, which would not cast it in a divisive light. But how can the defence of crucial policies go beyond an individual speech and become the focus of a collective campaign, as long as the Labour left remains largely disorganised and uncoordinated at a national level?

To be sure, there are Briefing Groups, Campaign Groups, and local Labour lefts. At the national level, there is the Campaign Group of MPs, Labour Left Co-ordination, the CLPD, and publications such as Briefing and Campaign Group News. But none of these groupings or publications is yet in a position to bridge the gap and organise the left-wing activists in the CLPs on a national basis — except the Campaign Group MPs. Is it surprising that the right-wing should continue their offensive while the left remains disorganised, particularly if we bear in mind that the offensive began in 1982 after the Rank and File Mobilising Committee was wound up?

Clearly, four years on, the RFMC cannot be resurrected — particularly as a number of its components have become rabid witch-hunters and architects of Kinnock’s cross-class strategy. But there is a sizeable and developing current in the Party which urgently needs to be organised together on a national scale if the leadership’s lurch to the right — and possibly to coalitionism — is to be halted. It is incumbent on nationally recognised leaders of the left, such as Benn, Heffer or Skinner, to start organising this current.

Mike Phipps Battersea CLP

aa

Briefing National Supplement page 8

‘There are in the article some welcome signs af realism about Kinnock and what the party leadership represents, It admits that there ‘may have been an initial over-estimation of the political space around Kinnock’ and that in the policies of the party leadership ‘we can observe all the hallmarks of a Keynesian technicism reminiscent of Wilson in 1964 rather than a preparation for a tadical assault on the power of capital’.

But if this is what the LCC now think about the leadership, and they seriously want to fight it, they will find themselves pushed into alliances with the hard left inside the party, whether they want such alliances or not. For it is precisely the “Briefing/Campaign Group” left which has been saying that Kinnock is moving party policy to the right in a manner reminiscent of Wilson, and exactly this hard left which has been trying to fight it. On the other hand it is the conscious and specific objective of the LCC, outlined in the article, to ‘marginalise’ the hard left in the party and ‘detach the more realistic and open-minded sections of the hard left’ from people like Briefing.

In fact the LCC are in a bind. As we shall see, their project of trying to create a radical space between Kinnock and the hard left is thoroughly utopian and will come a cropper; between now and the general election every section of the left in the party is going to have to decide whether to go with Kinnock in the name of ‘unity’ or fight the shift to the right, and thus line up with the hard left. Despite this recent profession of radical faith by the LCC, we suspect that the choice for most of them will be the former rather than the latter.

A CARICATURE OF THE LEFT

The basic line of argument of the Lcc is that there is a ‘third way’ between Kinnock and the hard left ‘ultras’. This “third way’ position is very reminiscent of the recent argument by Peter Carter, cP industrial organiser, that there is a ‘third way’ in the labour movement which includes ‘Sawyer, Bickerstaffe, Knapp, Livingstone and . . . the LCC’ (!). In order to argue for the ‘third way’ the LCC have to make a sweeping caricature of the hard left. This is what they say:

‘The “fundamentalist” left ...is expressed through certain common themes, including the assertion that Thatcherism is business as usual for capitalism; the denial that the left and the Labour Movement has been on the retreat, or that

. DICA

part of a ‘soft left’ axis together with Trib Briefing|Campaign Group or other politics’; initiatives. In short, the LCC wants to challenge the assumption that radicalism in the party is represented by the ‘hard left’ and stake its own claim to being the ‘realistic’ radical left.

une, Marxism Today etc; it

THE CONTRADICTIONS OF L REALISM’

The Labour Co-ordinating Committee is having a rethink. The May °86 issue of Labour Activist, the LCC newsletter, carries a major editorial declaring that there has been some ‘stagnation’ in LCC perspectives and that therefore a new strategy has to be worked out. The source of the LCC’s disquiet is revealingly set out in the article. ‘The LCC takes exception to the widespread imp admits that ‘many constituency parties are still

Phil Hearse (Hampstead and Highgate CLP)

ression that it is dominated by

and it claims that there has been a ‘misleading impression on the ground’ about Lcc

MAY __86

Newsletter of the LCC

A STRATEGY FOR LABOUR’S DEMOCRATIC LEFT

1. ATIME OF CHANGE

capitalism or the Let He ee cetaist refusal to Ken Livingstone and the ula left of

ac te aca of te problems fac. feat signticance, He had been Wed

In this context, the break between

stp Tapour movement helps to ex: tonal proyetod| as part of the This atime of considerable ferment plan the growing disaffection of sec. Mumiate Benovscaiait goo Trs's atime of comeporvemunine tons of te Left from ther erste hosed ty ne sae), MY ardchongoon troll to ermouby ales. The centialTocus has been reac- ‘avy the lessons, rove Ty eo

the Communist Party

Tons to the 1983 defeat, Benn’sbelef stone on the tr eee tperved feature has thal Labour's & milion voto was a T2v nave pest

becr the emergence of what Some triumphant affirmation of socialism (re

eee subbed a fundamentalist” Left, peated by Miliband in New Left Re

15 of vanguardism

percussionsin the

Constituency influenced by Briefing There were of course trends prior to

ave ee the Labour ua. ew 148} proved partcualy symbolic | 196 Reco! SP re-alignment Fear factor eee per of the backwardness of ths type of aso have tet Ok Timits tothe Le he or Soh, tnikang, Whe the provocate and Somat POUL BOTT Tt ne

ceeeeyobtionary groups. and even opportunist manouevres of the “Hard : onary OS Mir, Lefton the NEC on NATO and other of the Labour ary Sash Teo ere einatihe seealed faves. revealed that thoy remain Wereand saa) But they need to be

band

$8705, that of the democratic reforms

band's stctures against Ine Perot fated wih questions of leaders Set agamst the sheet Soe prob

nica" oF

there has been a rightward move in British politics; the espousal of traditional “class politics” as the crucial ingredient of socialist advance. The “business as usual” approach is the essence of the fundamentalist camp’.

On most of these particulars of the analysis of the hard left, the LCC explanation of our positions is simply false. We would precisely argue that Thatcherism is NOT business as usual for capitalism; that there HAS been a shift to the right and that the labour movement in many respects has been in a period of defensive struggles and retreat; and that “business as usual’ is hardly an adequate response.

The problem is not one of recognising that Thatcherism represents a specific, yery class conscious and ‘tough’ capitalist response to the crisis (although not an ‘exceptional form of state’ as Marxism Today theorists say), but of deciding what the appropriate response to Thatcherism is. This is where the difference between Briefing and the LCC/soft left lies.

The soft left, and above all Marxism Today, have responded by saying that Thatcherism is a massive threat, and to get over it we have to create a ‘popular

Sa cima between these and events insie the Party, under the lems ane

een TonyBene'sbles-usion that if these were put right our Of 197

Me cr and the Cle Politics other problems would fade away and social These develo" *

raised by the defeats 3 and setbacks n lass

struggles gen rain fe

mer

front’ by lowering our sights, jettisonin; our socialist objectives and above al avoid getting involved in hard struggle against the Tory government. We hav said the opposite; that Thatcherism is

massive threat to the labour movemen which has to be fought here and now, i struggle, to preserve and extend the sociz and political gains of the labour move ment and its allies. Now where exactl does the LCC stand on this question ‘Fundamentally’ with Marxism Today, © basically with the ‘hard left’?

Let’s put it another way: is th appropriate response to the rightwat polarisation of British politics Thatcherism to move to the right ou selves and become more ‘moderate’? Or jt to stand out against the predomina trend and create the basis fora fightbac and for a swing in the other direction?

The urgency of this question is pos by the activity of the Labour Par leadership which is engaged in a dete mined and very coherent attempt to pu the party in a moderate direction, incl ding what the LCC themselves describe ‘Keynesian technicism rather than | assault on capital’. In the coming peri

Briefing National Supplement page 9

L.L.C. WOUND UP

The undersigned delegates and observers to the Labour Left Co-ordination regret its winding up as an umbrella organisation for the left campaigns and tendencies in the Party.

In its one year of existence the LLC was able to co-ordinate united activity and campaigning around a number of vital issues: in support of the debate on lesbian and gay rights at ’85 annual conference; supporting positive action for women and Black people in the Party; opposition to the witch-hunt; a joint bulletin at annual Conference and joint fringe meetings at regional, youth and women’s conferences.

All these activities were made possible by the goodwill of its participants and their preparedness to act on a consensus basis as equal participating organisations.

Unfortunately a minority of organisations — Socialist Action, WAC, CLPD — insisted that the LLC could not proceed unless it changed its basis into a two tier structure with ‘‘larger’’ organisations comprising a steering group and “‘smaller’” organisations relegated to a subordinate role. The composition of this steering group was arbitrarily constructed to include some campaigns and tendencies but to exclude others. As no consensus could be found for resolving this difference, all organisations of the LLC agreed on it dissolution.

For our part we remain convinced of the necessity for left unity and co-operation wherever and whenever possible. We wil continue to work with others on the left around definite objectives and issues, particularly around opposition to the witch

hunt. We would urge all the campaigns and tendencies on the left to continue such cooperation through democratic and nonexclusive forms.

Davy Jones, former LLC Secretary Walter Woolfgang*, Labour CND observer Nadine Finch, Target Labour Government Theresa Conway*, LCLGR delegate Jeremy Corbyn*, Campaign Group of MPs observer

Narendra Makanji*, Target Labour Government delegate

Anita Patel*, Black Sections delegate Basil Hinton*, LCI observer

Steph Grant*, Labour Women for Ireland delegate

Jane Prust, Labour Briefing

Jane Kelly, International

Jenny Fisher, Socialist Viewpoint,

*in a personal capacity

in the Labour Party no-one is going to get anywhere by abstaining on this central question.

THE WITCH HUNT

Nowhere is the incoherence of the LCC’s response to the present situation more clearly shown than in their reaction to the witch hunt inside the party. Once you admit, as does the LCC at least tacitly, that the party leadership is engaged in a process of moving the party to the right, then you have to put the administrative measures being taken against Militant and other left wingers (for example in Birmingham and Exeter) in that context. Just why has this obsession with chasing out the ‘ultras’ come now? Is it purely and simply an accident? Or is there some political relationship between the shift to the right by the party leadership and these anti-left organisational measures? And why does the LCC itself choose this very moment to make isolating the hard left its number one stated task?

The LCC says in their article that on Merseyside ‘this has not been a witch hunt against socialist beliefs, but a corrective action against a vanguard party which has hijacked Labour's administration’. It is difficult to know whether this is naivety or duplicity.

Does the LCC really believe that the anti-Militant purge is motivated by a desire by the party leaders to pursue a relentless fight against abuses of procedure and dirty dealings in local parties? If that were really the case, why haven't the NEC launched an enquiry into Sparkbrook CLP, and the semi-mafia style operations of Hattersley and his supporters in that constituency?

And why hasn't the LCC put together a weighty dossier on such abuses by the right wing, rather than ‘evidence’ by doubtless fairminded democratic socialists like Ken Cure, Tony Clarke and Roy Hattersley on the NEC? And why, comrades of the LCC, do you think that you arc ‘misinterpreted’ on the ground by local party activists — is it perhaps because they see you in practice as lining up with the right wing?

KINNOCK LEADERSHIP

The LCC article concludes with a lengthy discourse on the nature of the socialist project and the agencies and tactics of socialist transition, It reasserts the need for extr

parliamentary action; argues against any notion of ‘smashing the state machine’; argues that there are a ‘plurality of subjects’ in the transition to socialism, not just an homogenous working class; rejects coalitionism; defends the importance of ‘market mechanisms’; and puts forward the notion of a ‘new, radical left” to fight for all these objectives.

It is outside the scope of a brief article like this to reply in detail to all the LCC say on this. But the question we want to pose is what does it all mean, here and now in the class struggle and in the internal divisions in the party? Let's start with a quote from the LCC, which is deadly accurate and very well said:

‘There is no surer sign of a real shift to the Right as when people start finding strikes, protests and campaigns outside conventional channels embarrassing and dangerous to ele. toral prospects. It is also the crucial area in which people engaged in action learn to make a critique of capitalist society.”

And so say all of us. But who exactly do the LCC have in mind when they write this? All the sectarian and vanguardist ultras down at Briefing, not to mention people on the miners’ and Wapping picket lines, would probably think of Neil Kinnock. It is not totally outside the bounds of possibility that the LCC themselves were thinking of the party leadership when they wrote this piece.

But if this is so, and if the LCC genuinely believes that it is in struggle that people learn to make a critique of capitalist society — and that therefore mass struggle is the material foundation of any socialist strategy how can it conceivably be a key strategic task to create a new left in the party which is, as the LCC says, ‘supportive but critical’ of the Kinnock camp?

Here you have a nice paradox which sums up all the contradictions of what the LCC is trying to do. The LCC, at least tacitly, admits we have a rightward moving party leadership which is going in a Wilson-type direction and is embarrassed by mass extra-parliamentary activity. It admits that it overestimated the potential of this leadership, and by inference the LCC became too associated with it. But instead of sounding the alarm bells, and warning what a Kinnock government might look like, and urging a struggle against the rightward drift, it wants a new left in the party which is “supportive but critical” of this very leadership!

The LCC does not want to be misinterpreted. It wants to keep its radical credentials,

nd ger a debate about sociali

But in the real divide inside the party — for the shift to the right or against it — there is not a lot of room for a political position whose ‘radicalism’ consists of basic support for the leadership and furtive visits to witch hunt committees carrying weighty dossiers fingering the left. Schizophrenics often feel that people don’t understand them. Sad to report, the split personality of the LCC remains only in the mind; when you meet their supporters in your local constituency party, things become clarified very rapidly.

LABOUR GOVERNMENT

LCC supporters would doubtless say that our judgement of them is one-sided. Indeed, there is no point denying that, at least on paper, the LCC remains committed to many radical social and political measures. The nub of the question — what stance to take towards the party leadership — must revolve around what we can expect from a Kinnock government, which is now a real possibility.

Briefing’s view is that there is a very real danger that a Kinnocked government would be a re-run of Wilsonism, but in a very different context. The 1964-70 and 1974-9 governments had a disastrous enough effect on the course of British politics, but a centre-right Labour government in today’s conditions of mass unemployment and economic crisis would be an even bigger disaster. Apart trom demoralising a labour movement already pulverised by tue best part of a decade of Thatcherism, a Labour government which failed to take on board an assault on capital would be forced to

administer capitalism’s crisis as. did Wilson and Callaghan. The experience of Mitterand in. France

shows what this can lead to in a period of severe crisis, a sharp shift to the right, and the growth of ultra-right radicalism. Therefore it seems obvious that the left of the party must set itself the dual task of trying to fight for radical socialist measures now, as the best way of trying to avoid this catastrophe, and of building a militant left which will not be disorientated by such a development Throughout the LCC editorial there is no inkling that a Kinnock government could turn out to be a right wing goverment compelled to launch attacks on the working class. If the LCC think this is excluded they are sleepwalking, We wait with interest to see whether their rethink will make them

Briefing National Supplement page 10

LESBIAN AND GAY THE LOCAL ELECTI

The Local Government elections have been a watershed for Lesbian and Gay intervention in local government. They were the first major electoral test of “Lesbian and Gay initiatives’, as well as being the launchpad for the next wave of activity.

As a result of the elections we now have a greatly increased number of Out Lesbian and Gay Councillors: including Bob Crossman — the new Mayor of Islington. We also now have far more Councils with manifesto commitments on Lesbian and Gay Rights, and a whole series of new initiatives taking off — the biggest being the six person Lesbian and Gay Unit in Haringey.

John Chapman

Bob Crossman

As an election “‘issue’’ — the results have been very contradictory. In Haringey, racism and homophobia were key issues on which the elections were fought, with the local press and opposition parties churning out the most vicious propaganda. The Council Leadership fought hard in defence of Black People, Lesbians and Gays and around its other progressive policies, and increased by 8 the size of the Labour Group. Interestingly, the right wing Councillors, who disowned the Council Leadership and policies, lost their seats.

Likewise Camden, Hackney and Lambeth — which have been leading Councils as regards lesbian and gay initiatives, also increased their majorities, after strong political campaigning.

The situation in Islington, however, has been very different. The campaign was completely apolitical: the manifesto (including a sizeable section on lesbian and gay rights) was ‘‘lost’? — so that no one knew what our policies were; and leading Councillors went out of their way to sabotage lesbian and gay initiatives in the period coming up to the election.

Despite all this, there were still vicious attacks from the local press, and opposition, around the issue of Lesbian and Gay Rights, and the issue came up repeatedly on the doorstep. Labour

Councillors in the South of the Borough responded by trying to distance themselves from Lesbian and Gay initiatives, and some Councillors went so far as to attack the policies, in letters to the local press.

The results of the election in Islington South were disastrous — with the majority of seats going to the SDP. Those Councillors who denounced policy lost their seats, like in Haringey. In contrast, the three Gay Councillors standing in the North of the Borough got elected, with no loss in votes, and Bob Crossman, who fought the most upfront Lesbian and Gay campaign, scored one of the highest votes.

The results then show a very interesting pattern. Councils which have an upfront profile on lesbian and gay rights, provoke vicious homophobia from the local press,

RIGHTS AND ONS

Tobie Glenny Islington North CLP

and opposition parties. Those Councils which counter this attack, by campaigning hard in defence of Lesbians and Gays, undermine the homophobia, and get out the Lesbian and Gay vote. For them the issue is a vote winner. Those Labour Coucillors, however, who pander to prejudice, disown their own policies, and try to look the other way, are on a hiding to nothing.

The issue is a crucial one for the Labour Party in Islington South, as Gay MP Chris Smith is standng. for re-election, and homophobia will be a central issue. The strategy adopted by the Party over the next two years, is going to determine his fate. Bermondsey or Haringey? — that is the question.

TIME TO STEP UP FIGHT

FOR THE N.H.S.

Neasden Hospital, St Mary’s Harrow Road, New End Hospital Hampstead, Riverside’s West London and wards at Charing Cross Hospital, beds and services at the Maudsley psychiatric Hospital: the toll of cuts and closures in London’s NHS shows no signs of

Health Minister Barney ‘‘Rubble’’ Hayhoe may have intervened in the immediate aftermath of May 8th to stave off the embarrassing closure of Westminster Hospital until after the next election, but he cannot hope to stop all of the impending cuts and closures without a major injection of new money. The latest cuts are the outcome of £80m slashed from London’s NHS since 1982.

Indeed, if the Tories did a “U-turn” on health services in the politically sensitive constitutencies of London and the South East, they would be under immense Pressure to provide more cash to stave off similar cutbacks in Manchester, Newcastle and the rest of the country.

The local elections showed quite clearly that the health cuts are a major liability to the government. They also showed that the labour movement lags way behind the kind of campaigning approach which is needed to capitalise on that situation.

If London Labour Parties built serious and systematic health campaign work, that alone could tip the balance at the next General Election.

The issues are clear enough:

@hospital, ward and bed closures affecting most of London’s 30 health districts; growing waiting lists; plunging standards;

@the scandalous lack of systematic screening for curable cervical and breast cancer — resulting in the needless deaths of thousands of women each year. Why has there been no united campaign on this by Women’s Sections?

@and the fight for genuine provision of

John Lister

“community care’’ to relieve the burden on thousands of individual women saddled with responsibility for sick and elderly relatives.

A real fight on these and other questions could win enormous popular support — and encourage health unions to take firm action against cuts in service and standards.

One of the driving forces undermining standards of patient care has been the Tory insistence upon putting ancillary services out to competitive tender.

This policy has brought profiteering private contract firms into NHS hospitals, and a wave of brutal cutbacks in staff, wages and services as a result of costtrimming “‘in-house’’ tenders.

Privatisation is cuts by another name. Patients receive less adequate care; nursing staff get lumbered wth extra unpaid ancillary tasks; and experienced ancillary staff — in London mainly women from ethnic minorities — find themselves on the dole or their pay packets savagely cut.

Yet privatisation has not been widely understood or challenged outside the ranks of the health unions. Since NUPE’s deliberate abandonment of the courageous women strikers at Barking Hospital there has been little action even by health unions. This year’s NUPE conference retreated even further from any fight against contractors or job-slashing ‘‘in-house’’ tenders.

In an attempt to break the silence on privatisation and encourage campaigns to take up the issue, a new 41-page London Health Emergency dossier explains the background to competitive tendering; surveys its impact in each of London’s health districts: gives profiles on some of the main firms; and gives comparative information on “‘in-house’’ tenders as well as other information. It costs £3.50 plus 50p postage, from London Health Emergency, 335, Grays Inn Road, London WCI (01-833 3020).

Briefing National Supplement page 1)

MAR XISM 86

10th annual week of meetings, debates and discussion organised by the Socialist Workers Pai

+ Tony Cliff on Lenin and the revolutionary party

*Paul Foot speaks on Harold Wilson

Peter Fryer gives an eye witness account of the

1956 Hungarian

uprising

Brian Manning on the English Civil War

#Sheila McGregor on The history and politics of Militant

Harry Wicks on the 50th anniversary of the Moscow Trials

Andy Zebrowski on Ubya—Gadaffi, his friends and his foes ¢ Raymond Williams on The socialist novel

Nigel Harris on Why are millions starving?

Mike Simons looks at the Nuclear nightmare—the politics of nuclear power

Chris Harman on Base and ‘superstructure in Marxism

xJohn Gray on Workers’ revolt in Irish history—the Ulster

gi or

Nine

introductory

courses

including:

Duncan Hallas

ives four talks n Trotsky's

eontribution to

Lenin and the Russian revolution

*Workers in revolt

orThe rise of the British labour movement

The Labour Party and the working class Tr

Revolutions and the bourgeoisie Ten questions on the crisis #Race and nation

‘ireland, problems for socialists

a *

Entertainment

Bands—such as Mr every night. Clean and Roy Hamilton, —_ Films inc! the Palm Wine Orchestra, Irish Mist, Second Message, the Fire Next Time, Luddy Samms and the Deliverers, Floyd Loyd and the

Potato 5—anddiscos videos

to Brezhnev, Winstanley,

‘Stonewall.

xTrade unions and the struggle for socialism

«Women’s

iberation and

socialism *What makes

revolution? Ten questions

for socialists

ude Repo

Man, Ascendancy, Letter

, La Balance, Battleship

Potemkin, Before Pius cabaret and

411 July University of London

ITS BEEN Labour's year at the ballot box. But the cost ha + been high, mThe red flag lowered as more and more right wing policies cascade from the leadership. The witch hunt against Militant that bodes badly for everyone else on the left. mWorkers' struggles all but abandoned for the sake of Kinnock’s electoral victory. Yet at the same time the need for socialism has been highlighted like never before. Reagan's bombing of Libya, the catastrophe of Chernobyl, the continuing famine in Africa, all show the horror of capitalism and the need ‘to overthrow it. Marxism 86 will be addressing Kinnockism, discussing the alternatives and debating the questions, bath new and old, for socialists today. ‘Should socialists be in the Labour Party . Will the crisis ever end? WIIl a revolution put an end to racism? mis Russia a socialist society? Can a revolutionary party be bullt? Marxism 86 will be, like its nine predecessors, not just a week of debate and discussion, but an opportunity to gain a richer understanding of working class history and Marxist theory, and to discover how these can be applied to the problems we face today. It will be a week complemented with entertainment—bands, discos, cabaret and films. Last year 2,500 people came to Marxism for the weekend or

longer. All are welcome to make this year’s Marxism even bigger.

Seventeen special and advanced courses Including:

Debates and forums, Including:

+Soclalism and black liberation with Bruce George and Mare Wadsworth

+ Student debate on ‘Should socialists ‘support Israel? with ‘Seth Harman and Zak

Resistance and revolution In South Africa

Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism

Women In working class history

xThe rise and fall of the Communist Party

irish republicanism and the working class

*Black resistance

and American labour

xArt and the Russian revolution

Special programme for school students

the Spanish Civil War

*Mike Gonzalez and John Bevan on ‘Can the Sandinistas bring socialism?

*Cynthla Cockburn and Ann Rogers on ‘Why are women kept out of skilled jobs?

*Playwright Alan Plater and TV director Alex Graham discuss ‘Can socialists use wr

‘The cost of a ticket for the week Is £18 in advance {£22 at the door), £11 for the weekend (£6 for School students). Please write for further Information on day and session tickets.

A professionaily-run creche Is avallabe—places must be booked in advance.

eressseceny

Please send me details of Marxism 86

Briefing National Supplement page 12

WOMENS CONFERENCE °86

Rothesey is a very beautiful, very peaceful town on the Isle of Bute, just off the coast of western Scotland. The presence of a gunship in the harbour during the weekend of 17th-18th May therefore came as something of a surprise. Could it be that they were there because the Navy feared trouble from the dangerous hordes who. converged upon Rothesey that weekend — the 61st Conference of

Labour Women?

Malicious rumour has it that the Conference was held in Rothesay in order to limit press coverage in case Labour Women voted for policies which would embarrass their leaders. If that was the ploy then it was certainly successful. The national press didn’t make it to Bute, and there was virtually no mention of the conference in the media.

Embarrassment

Probably just as well for Neil actually. Bit of an embarrassment these Labour Women. Passing resolutions condemning the witch-hunt and challenging the Chair when she refused to allow Felicity Dowland (expelled member of Liverpool District Labour Party) to speak in the debate. And then they all walked out when that nice man, Larry Whitty, tried to tell them what they should be doing to win the next election. (Being sisterly to the men apparently). Why can’t they stick to making tea and sandwiches?

Labour Women decisively rejected the politics of the witch-hunt, the resolution opposing the expulsions and the suspension of the Liverpool District Party was carried by 279 votes to 17i votes on a card vote. Women are again leading the way in the fightback against the right in the party.

One theme ran throughout the Conference. Women want socialist policies and active campaigns on the issues which concern them, and this was reflected in all the debates. In the debate on the National Health Service the necessity of rebuilding the NHS after the Tory cuts was stated, but it was stressed that we must have a health service which fulfills women’s needs in an accessible manner. Similarly with the Welfare State — women know what services we need and men must listen to our demands. Issues of low pay and part-time workers’ rights, along with women’s place in a socialist economy must also be a priority.

International affairs figured prominently in the debates. An emergency resolution condemning Reagan’s bombing of Tripoli and the use of British bases in this operation was carried. Support was also given to demands that the next Labour government get rid of the American bases in Britain, as well as carrying out Party policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Ida Jimmy of SWAPO addressed the Conference and in an intensely moving speech called for Labour Women to support the struggle of their black sisters in Namibia and South Africa.

Resolutions giving support to the ANC and COSATU and calling for sanctions against the South African government were passed

John Cunningham came under attack for his refusal as a front bench spokesperson to oppose nuclear power, and a message of sympathy was sent to the familics of rescue workers who died

at Chernobyl. One glaring omission from the agenda was

that there was no resolution on the current print dispute. Coverage of trade union issues generally was poor, and a resolution expressing support for the mining communities only just got onto the agenda. There was an attempt to get a debate on an emergency resolution condemning the policing methods used at Wapping but even this (extremely mild) resolution was refused a hearing on the grounds that it wasn’t an emergency!

Problems with venue

There were problems arising from the conference venue. Although the decision to hold a major Labour Party conference in Scotland is welcome (and not before time), there must have been more accessible venues available. The ferry journey out to the island made things particularly difficult for women with disabilities and there were no disabled facilities in the Pavillion where the conference was being held. If the Labour Party is serious in its policy of equal rights for the disabled, then we must have a commitment to finding venues which are accessible to people with disabilities.

The standard of debate was very high, much higher in fact than in many of the debates at National Conference, where many of the speeches are intended not so much as a contribution to a debate, as striking a posture. Ironically, because Women’s Conference has no policy making powers and receives little attention from the media, there is more chance of issues being properly debated and given the consideration which they deserve.

Women lead fightback

Once again, women in the Labour Party have supported positions well to the left of established party policy. On questions such as nuclear power, the Welfare State, the Health Service, the economy, Ireland, lesbian rights, women are making demands upon the leadership. We want socialist policies and the political will to implement them. Women have rejected the ‘re-aligned’ policies of the soft, so-called left and Kinnock. The fightback begins here!

Labour Briefing Women

BLOCK VOTE CONFLICT

Signs of a worrying, and potentially deeply damaging, split between women from the Constituency Labour Parties and women trade union delegates were apparent at the Rothesay Women’s Conference. It is the first time in several years that the division between union and CLP women has been so visible and expressed in such acrimonious terms. It is therefore worth considering the reasons behind it in some detail.

Many union delegates at National Women’s Conference have said in previous years that they feel as if they are treated like “poor relations”’ or ‘‘second class citizens’’ when compared with the constituency delegates. Much of this problem centres around the issue of the block vote. There is no block vote at Women’s Conference:

each delegate has one vote.

It is clearly ridiculous that a delegate from a women’s section representing the views of 600 women should have one vote, while a trade union delegate representing the views of 6,000 women should also have only one vote. This has led to union delegates feeling resentment against the CLP delegates, and also to a feeling that the women from the CLPs patronise them.

This feeling was given expression in Rothesay in an argument which centred around a resolution put forward by NUPE on women’s organisation, which was opposed by the Labour Women’s Action Committee on the grounds that it was a backward step from policy previously passed by Women’s Conference. Women in NUPE had drawn up the resolution without having detailed knowledge about LWAC’s aims: however, they believed that their

‘y Conencay

Terry

WOMEN SUPPORT LESBIAN RIGHTS

For the first time this year Labour Party ‘Women’s Conference took a debate on Lesbian and Gay rights. It is in some ways ironic that this conference is the last to discuss the issue: the TUC Women’s Conference, TUC and Labour Party Conference all passed resolutions last year. Indeed, the motion passed in Rothesay was framed in the context of pushing for the real implementation of party policy; specifying within that the role that the National Labour Women’s Committee should play in the run up to the General Election. It is undoubtedly the case that there will be a pressure within the Party to drop policy on this matter — or at least be silent on the issues in public.

Within the women’s organisation there has not been sufficient discussion of the demands that are crucial for Lesbians or the operation of heterosexism within the Party. It was clear in Bute that many women supported the debate at a gut level although they had not particularly thought through its implications. Lesbians who

were fighting to make sure the debate didn’t fall off the end of the agenda had delegates coming up to them in the coffee bar and on the conference floor offering solidarity.

Organisation around the resolution brought together a number of lesbians within the Party and gave us increased confidence and visibility. A number of women spoke in the discussion who were stating their lesbianism publicly for the first time. Sharing these experiences amongst ourselves and on the floor of conference will hopefully give impetus to the implementation of the resolution — locally and nationally. It also again raises the issue for the strong organisation of lesbians within the Party to push these developments forward.

Terry Conway Islington North CLP

Briefing National Supplement page 13

Jane Prust Labour Briefing Women

resolution was broadly sympathetic to these aims. They had attempted to contact LWAC in order to discuss the resolution, and apparently they had received indications that LWAC would support it.

When they arrived in Bute, the NUPE delegates were faced with a leaflet from LWAC calling for remittance of the resolution, and advising delegates to vote against the resolution if NUPE refused to remit it. They were particularly angered that LWAC had made no attempt to contact them before putting out the leaflet.

The situation was further inflamed when trade union delegates heard that women in LWAC were saying that Tom Sawyer, the NUPE General Secretary, had really written the resolution. The inference was that women in NUPE were being used as dupes by Sawyer and that they were too stupid to have drawn up the resolution themselves.

There were indeed problems with the NUPE resolution: not least that it watered down the demands made by Women’s Conference, and, basically, put the task of implementing them in the lap of the NEC

Not surprisingly, feelings were running high, and when an emergency meeting of union delegates was called on Saturday night women expressed anger at what they saw as LWAC’s divisive tactics. Right wing union women were able to use the opportunity to launch an attack onLWAC, feminists, Militant, CLP women and the left in general. LWAC were accused of being anti-men and of not doing anything for the rank and file women in the Labour Party.

The next day, NUPE’s resolution was

defeated on a card vote by 256 votes to 202. A speech delivered from the platform by Ann Pettifor, a leading LWAC activist, replying to the debate on behalf of the National Labour Women’s Committee, was unable to heal the breach. Rightly or wrongly, trade union women said that they had felt patronised and treated like little girls — given a pat on the head for effort, but then told that they hadn’t got it quite right yet because they didn’t understand the issues!

It is of vital importance that the women’s organisation acts immediately to build bridges with the union women. If the situation continues the right wing will use it as a chance to attack LWAC and left feminists in the Party generally and none of us will benefit from this. One way forward is to tackle the question of the block vote at Women’s Conference as a matter of urgency. Briefing women have alway supported the introduction of the block vote, but any block vote must be representative of the views of women in the unions, and not open to cynical manipulation by a few male bureaucrats. There are now unions which have women’s structures which are accountable to their women members. We must look for a way of introducing the block vote which would be decided upon and controlled by the women union members.

The division between trade union women and CLP women is a false one. We are all involved in the same struggle and fighting the same battle. Splits between us will serve the interests of nobody except the right wing of the Party. We must face our differences, and go forward together in strength and sisterhood.

SHADOW ELECTIONS

The National Labour Women’s Conference has elected five women whom they would like to see representing Labour Women on the NEC. The National Labour Women’s Committee are now committed to campaigning in the Party and the trade unions for the election of these five women to the women’s section of the National Executive Committee.

The trade unions in particular are crucial if the campaign is to stand any chance of success, The trade union block vote virtually decides the women’s seats, it is therefore vital to gain their support. At present it seems as if this will be an uphill struggle. Many union delegations at Women’s Conference voted against the shadow elections and refused to participate in them. Margaret Jamieson of NUPE described the elections as ‘a gimmick’, irrelevant to the real needs of women. The campaign around the five women for the NEC must be used to build bridges with trade union women, It will be a good opportunity to carry WAC’s demands into the trade unions and to raise WAC’s profile again in the Labour Party generally.

The women elected in the Shadow Elections for the women’s seats on the NEC are:

Dianne Abbot

Joan Maynard

Mandy Moore

Clare Short

Frances Morrell Briefing supporter Sarah Roelofs was second runner-up after Margaret Beckett. It is important that the women receive as many nominations for the NEC as possible, so please try to nominate them through your CLP or union branch if you are able to do so.

Jane Prust, Labour Briefing Women

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

On attending the conference for the first time, we were aware of a relaxed, friendly, but yet “informal” gathering throughout the three days, not to mention the fringe events which were of equal importance. There was a great feeling of solidarity and sisterhood linked with common struggle, which encourages us to return to future conferences and to initiate more women into the Labour Party. We felt conference was important from an educational aspect: because of the liberal platform, it clarified points that we were unsure of but did not feel confident enough to question.

Julia Dawson Alison Morris Deptford CLP

Briefing National Supplement page 14

NUPE CONFERENCE

This year’s NUPE Conference saw a major acceleration in the rightward drift of leadership and delegates. It left the Union, despite a well-respected industrial tradition and many progressive political positions, as a solid base for the LCC/ Kinnock project, and at the helm of the witch-hunts in the Labour Party.

Many of the Union’s ‘political’ positions went undebated this year. NUPE is unilateralist, fights for positive discrimination and a woman’s right to choose. This. year, Conference was addressed by a speaker from COSATU, declared total opposition to the march against Bernie Grant in Haringey, and, following one of the best debates of the week, voted to launch a new anti-racist offensive within its own ranks. But in the economic and industrial battlegrounds, NUPE has shifted dramatically away from constructive leadership.

In the face of Abolitionism, ratecapping and privatisation, resistance has been kept isolated in the localities. Pay campaigns have not been organised, despite Conference decisions, since the National Strikes of 1979 (Council) and 1982 (NHS).

Local action has been deliberately counterposed to national action and this was the perfect backdrop for the 1986 Conference, whose motto was quite clearly: ‘Heads down for the election of a Kinnock Government.’

TOM SAWYER

This mood was most marked in the debate on Liverpool and the witch-hunt Deputy leader Tom Sawyer, LCC member and a leading light on the NEC of the Labour Party, attacked not only what he called ‘Militant members’, but also ‘Militant supporters’ and ‘Militant front organisations, such as the Broad Left’.

The debate ended with resolutions opposing the witch-hunt being routed by 800-100, and by the anti-Militant secretary of the Liverpool City NUPE branch, who had refused to ballot her members on strike action in support of the Council’s stand against rate-capping, being hosannahed to and from the rostrum.

Another major casualty of this ‘heads down for Kinnock’ project was the

Zz

TRADE UNI

L. P. Photo Library.

Tom Sawyer.

Union’s policy on fighting privatisation. NUPE will now formally encourage involvement in tendering for members’ jobs. Although many a full-timer has been doing this already, the fact that it has never been policy has prevented it from becoming a first priority. But since the Union has never adopted a national approach to the fight, local campaigns have always been under great pressure. Now the first energies are to be spent in tailoring bids or negotiating preventative deals — in either case the cost to jobs and conditions will be horrific. Accompanying campaigns will be less aimed at stopping privatisation than instructing an impotent public whom to vote for at the next General Election.

This must all be cheering news for the many Labour-controlled authorities who would prefer to comply with Government tendering orders rather than encourage rebellion amongst their own workers.

SHAKY ALLIANCE

But despite the success of the ‘Kinnock project’, NUPE Leaders must know that the scheme is built upon a rotten and fairly shaky alliance — from the right wing, through the Stalinists, the LCC, to the anti-Militant independent left.

The Stalinists, in particular, prove to be embarrassing bedfellows for Sawyer and Bickerstaffe these days. One Scottish full-time Officer, closely associated with a sexist and

ae

BRIEFING

**Keep your head down, or we’ll knock it off?’’

NG

racist slander-magazine circulated ‘under wraps’ at all recent Conferences, physically assaulted Glynn Jones, a Socialist Action supporter from Swansea. Another, of similar rank, politics and nationality, punched and floored Danny Deedes, a leading Irish member. of NUPE’s Executive Committee.

These disgraceful acts reflect heavily upon those who welcome thugs into their unholy alliance. And the duration of that alliance will clearly depend on the ‘soft left’s’ appetite for outrageous political opportunism,

AGAINST THE DRIFT

The organised left, having totally lost the Conference to the Kinnockites, did reasonably well in acting as an attractive pole against the general drift.

The SWP interventions were constructive, particularly on the issues of racism and the witch-hunt. The Broad Left pulled together an excellent fringe-meeting of 200, in which Derek Hatton ably fended off a fierce challenge from yet more ‘tired and emotional’ Scottish Stalinists. Militant’s own fringe meeting attracted over 100 people. There were also very successful gatherings organised by the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and London Health Emergency.

But, although the rightward drift possibly increases the prospects for the organised left, it would be foolish to underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead,

The SWP’s position on the Labour Party testricts the organisation’s effectiveness in following through their positions into the battleground of the witch-hunt itself. The Militant’s excessive centrism and positions on self-organisation and Black and women’s sections, pose major problems in winning | independent activists away from Sawyer-type caricatures of the organised left.

Yet the Broad Left, led in NUPE by good, non-sectarian Militant comrades, is the most hopeful means of establishing a united left in NUPE. And it can be built if it stands:

i) by the traditions of struggle that led to NUPE’s growth in the 70s ii) as best fighters for the political campaigns already established in NUPE (against racism/ sexism, for unilateralism)

iii) by a united front against the Kinnock project and the witch-hunt.

This will lay the foundations for it to emerge as, a major force within the Union when Sawyer dumps the Stalinists, and when Kinnock dumps Sawyer.

By our NUPE Correspondent

Briefing National Supplement page 15

The CPSA Broad Left made substantial gains at this year’s CPSA conference, pushing the Kinnockite BL 84 group into third place, but socialists face a continuing battle against the splitters and the right wing in the coming months. The atmosphere at Conference was tense as the witch-hunt against the Militant Tendency reached previously unseen heights, as Alistair Graham gave the Left his parting gift of promising to hand over a list of all known Militant supporters to the Labour Party NEC to assist the present wave of expulsions. When presented with a petition (organised by the Socialist Workers Party) protesting against the witch-hunt, Graham taunted the Left further by promising to hand over the names on the petition to the NEC as well.

However, the right wing, despite maintaining control of the NEC, did face a revival of the traditional Broad Left. In the various Section elections the BL did well, maintaining control of the DHSS Section with a convincing majority, and for the first time taking control of the Home Office, the latter being the equivalent of Labour winning control of Brighton. In the Department of Employment the BL 84 group tightened its grip in the elections, but failed miserably on the conference floor. The battle is now on for the Broad Left to regain control in 1987.

The national election results turned out to be a very mixed bag indeed. Following the split in the National Moderate Group, it was hoped that this would prove beneficial to the Broad Left. However Marion Chambers, the “moderate” candidate, won the presidency with in excess of 20,000 votes, though Broad Left candidate Kevin Roddy came a good second (despite the split left vote) wih 17,326 votes, pushing the Communist Party’s candidate Ray Alderson into third place with only 14,000

In the wake of the defeat of the miners’ strike, many people must be secretly wondering if it’s even worth trying to fight pit closures.

As the Yorkshire Miners’ Campaign Group leaflet says: “‘Jobs have been lost by the thousand, members have voted to shut their own pits. The NUM is no longer effectively able to bargain nationally because of the UDM split. The rightward drift in the labour movement is influencing all of us... the pressure is on for us to be ‘realistic’ and just about everything seems to be sacrificed to the sacred cow of electing a Labour Government.””

The Yorkshire Miners’ Campaign Group started when a number of rank and file NUM members came together in the last months of the strike to try and halt the decline of the strike. They now see their fight as being within the NUM, to rebuild the fighting strength of the union. They aim to do this by bringing together activists still keen to fight, to boost morale, share ideas and organise against continuing management attacks, such as pit closures.

In the successful fight of Darfield Main

C.P.S.A. CONFERENCE °86: MIXED RESULT FOR THE LEFT!

votes. The combined vote of the left thus exceeded the combined vote of the right wing. BL 84 are now shown up for what they really are — moving to the right and destructive to the rank and file of the CPSA.

NEC Elections

The NEC elections saw a modest revival of Left fortunes as Doreen Purviss, a Militant supporter, was elected vice-president, and three other BL candidates were elected with her. The Guardian reported that four Militant supporters had been elected. In fact Eddie Spence (the BL candidate for the forthcoming General Treasurer elections) is an independent and Phil Ashill is a member of the CPSA Socialist Caucus (a ‘Briefing’ type formation within the union).

BL 84 saw its two main leaders (and. exsocialists) Micky Duggan and Stewart Mclennan knocked off the NEC. The ‘official’ Broad Left is now definitely beginning the process of pushing back the Kinnockites in the CPSA, though there is no place for the complacency that appeared in the pages of Militant recently.

Despite some gains and the pushing of BL 84 into third place, where they will remain, the problem of the Kinnockite left will not go away. On the conference floor there is not a Broad Left majority as yet and BL 84 lined up with the right wing time and time again to defeat the left on key issues such as the overtime ban and ban on casual staff which was pushed through by Alistair Graham and his acolytes in BL 84. These issues showed a definite rift in the ranks of BL 84, however, with substantial sections of the BL 84 group (particularly within the DHSS London South region) not being happy with the situation at all. The DHSS section will continue its overtime and casuals ban despite the NEC. That is what our members want. The strategy of the Broad Left must now be turned to building a rank and file fightback in the branches in the coming

months. — _ The first major opportunity will be arising

YORKS MINERS FIGHT PIT CLOSURES ‘s«ov=

against closure last year, the Campaign Group threw its weight behind the campaign of the branch and the community, offering resources, contacts and publicity. For example the entire route of the Yorkshire Miners’ Gala march was flyposted with “‘Darfield’s Not Done” posters.

Similarly in today’s campaigns against closure at Kinsley Drift and Cadeby: the Campaign Group can reinforce what Branch activists are doing, organising Yorkshire-wide publicity and support and helping to put pressure on the NUM Area leadership to take action.

The meetings of the Campaign Group are organised by miners for miners and are democratic and unintimidating. Women from Women Against Pit Closures and a few other supporters attend. Inevitably various left tendencies are present and get a fair hearing, but none is allowed to domineer or dominate. Speakers have attended from the NUM in Kent and Notts, from other disputes, e.g. the printers, and other struggles, e.g. South Africa and Broadwater Farm). The Campaign Group

during the campaign to elect a new General Secretary. John Macreadie is the Broad Left candidate, with running mate Terry Adams for deputy. It is vital that the CPSA elects a General Secretary that will fight for the members, something neither the right wing’s candidate, John Ellis, or the BL84 candidate, Geoff Lewtas can be trusted to do. John Macreadie has pledged to live on a member. salary and not accept the excessive wages of the General Secretary. This is a major step forward for an accountable union since the post has attracted the wrong type of person in the past. We want no more Alistair Grahams!

One important aspect of this vear’s conference was the growth of the Socialist Caucus, an alliance of rank and file activists who now form the second largest component of the Broad Left. With one member on the NEC and seven members of the DHSS Section EC, the group will provide an input into the CPSA that can be linked up with the left in the Labour Party.

Finally the Broad Left launched its campaign to affiliate the CPSA to the Labour Party with Tony Benn speaking to the largest fringe meeting seen in years at conference. Over 500 people attended, including large numbers of rank and file BL 84 supporters. The message to them must surely be: reverse your strategy now and rejoin the Broad Left!

The Broad Left can be contacted via Martyn Jenkins, c/o 48 Elsinore Road, Forest Hill, London SE23.

The Socialist Caucus can be contacted via the following addresses:

CPSA: Alistair Wallace, 139 Boleyn Road, London E7.

SCPS — The Caucus is being relaunched this summer and details can be obtained via Howard Fuller, 41 Rupert Gardens, Brixton, London

SWw9. By Howard Fuller, National Organiser, CPSA Broad Left 85/86

were the main mobilisers in Yorks for the 2nd March march for the sacked miners and they have sent busloads to Wapping.

At the last meeting I attended, about 50 were present, mostly rank and file miners, including some new faces, and about ten women. The meeting heard Billy Etherington and Ed Fredenburgh from the National Justice for Mineworkers Campaign and there was a lively discussion showing strong feeling in favour of a high campaigning profile for the sacked and imprisoned miners and against confining activities to fundraising. The contrast between the rank and file enthusiasm at this meeting and the sterile bureaucratic thetoric at the NJFMC’s national council meeting the previous day was remarkable. As the Campaign Group leaflet says:

“The evidence is clear... the network of activists that was thrown up by the strike still exists if only in patches and without a united voice. A handful of committed union members can begin to turn the tide at each branch and help rebuild the fighting spirit of the union as a whole.”

Briefing National Supplement page 16

HISTORIC BLACK NATIONAL NALGO CONFERENCE

Ahistoric meeting of Black trade unionists took place in Leeds on 31st May. This was the biggest gathering of Black workers in Britain with delegates from many

branches including Bristol, Cardiff, Aberdeen, Ipswich, Birmingham and Sheffield.

These Black trade unionists were

members of the National and Local Government Officers Association (NALGO). The conference was started by an inspired address from Karen Choru who said: ‘As Black trade unionists we must force NALGO to recognise the vital role it must play in fighting against exploitation and equal rights for all.’ She made conference aware of the fact that Black workers joined ttrade unions in higher proportions than white workers ie 56% of all Black workers join unions compared with 47% of white workers. The problem of institutional racism meant, however, that only 4% of Black workers held union positions compared with 11% of whites.

This was not the first National Black NALGO meeting, as previous conferences were held in 1983 and 1984. This was the first that was backed and funded by NALGO. The groundwork for this was due to the history of the various and continual struggles by Black members in NALGO for the right to self-organisation. It is not self-organisation for the sake of being separate, but to ensure that antiracism and Black rights are addressed by NALGO and the labour movement.

THE PRESS

The conference, was, as usual, viciously attacked by the capitalist media. The Daily Telegraph, and the Yorkshire papers tended to concentrate on the fact that only Black journalists were allowed in the conference. The Murdoch press were not allowed in even if they had a Black journalist. This so incensed the Sun that it had to carry a nasty editiorial. The Leeds Tory MP Dr Keith Hampson and the right-wing John Carlisle MP foamed at the mouth because of our challenge to the media to employ Black journalists. The conference kept to their policy even though NALGO tried to get us to change our position.

ISSUES RAISED AT CONFERENCE

The trade unions in general and NALGO in particular have evolved structures which do not meet with the needs and aspirations of Black workers. Their style of work, meeting procedures and bureaucracy need massive change if oppressed Black workers are to find them relevant in meeting their needs

Black workers are willing, able and ready to work in trade unions to fight racism and exploitation, but unions

always try to marginalise or create barriers to this involvement. Black workers see the importance of selforganisation as the means to break this tendency to prevent Black participation.

Racism means that NALGO must tackle its own structures, but more importantly make links with struggles in the community, Struggles against racism in the labour market, deportation campaigns, internal control, and police racism are issues that the unions must see as essential in the fight against racism.

White NALGO members who worked in housing and Social Services departments and in other service providing agencies had an added role to ensure that the services they provide must be antiracist and they must be ready to fight

racist practices. Racism was a trade union issue.

DECISIONS TAKEN AT CONFERENCE

Conference agreed to aims and objectives which committed itself to find ways to eliminate racism in the workplace, NALGO structures in the community and internationally. It saw selforganisation of Black workers in branches, districts, and the national level as a priority. Links between community struggles and the labour movement were seen as an integral and vital part in the fight against racism.

Secondly it agreed to build on the 60 Black NALGO groups and to create a support network

One of the Tories’ tasks of the "84 Trade Union Act was to install right-wing leaderships throughout the labour movement. To that extent they gained a resounding victory in the National Communications Union. In the Engineering section, the left dominated executive was replaced with 22 out of 23 seats by supporters of ‘NCU Ist’, a newly created right wing bloc led by John Golding, the new General Secretary.

Golding, voted in by a workplace ballot, made it clear at the NCU annual conference, recently held in Blackpool, that we have to learn to live in the ‘real world’ — this means changing policies with regards to job security, renationalisation and to outside competition such as Mercury

The tasks for the left, organised through a strong Broad Left, was to defeat these moves and on the whole succeeded, but was unable to provide a clear way forward.

Threat to job security

The most immediate threat is job security. Since 1981, 18,000 have been

for Black members in the process of starting a group in their branch. To build a strong national network of support with bigger and stronger branches helping newer ones.

It was agreed to hold regular seminars and training sessions at the local level but to have two national ones which should be held over a weekend to enable greater discussion.

The conference had various ideas on a national structure. There were lively debates on the type of national structure needed. Should it be branch or district based? How do we have accountability and avoid bureaucracy? Does NALGO’s structure have to be used or should we use other organisational forms? There were sharp differences on these issues and it was decided to have a full discussion on this when we meet again in 6 months time to approve 2 constitution, Some delegates were disappointed that we could not have agreed on a structure at the conference as we could always change structures later, if it were not suitable. Time however, did not allow for a conclusion on this. In all these discussions it was the conference’s overriding strength that unity of purpose was always prevalent.

The steering committee was re-elected and given the specific task of finding structures and policies in the next six months to put to another national Black members conference. The conference was a huge success and racists

had better beware. Gulam Mayet National Steering Committee Member and GLC/ILEA delegate

c.U. ANNUAL

lost through ‘natural wastage’ and as new technology progresses, with the introduction of digital exchanges, engineers required to run these exchanges will be less than a quarter of the present number. This has already started and will reach a peak over the next two to three years. Fearing the worst, a number of branches wanted to establish a redundancy agreement with BT but once again failed to get majority support although increasing numbers are looking for such a deal. In order to combat this and to provide an alternative way forward, conference mandated the incoming executive to campaign for industrial action in support of the ‘Broad Strategy’, a document produced by the past executive concerning new technology and its effect on jobs. In particular, the main demand is a 32 hour/4 day week to be achieved by April 1987. Whether Golding will be prepared to take this on or to start furtive negotiations will be seen.

Delegates remained ina militant mood during the discussion about proposed changes in the Post Office. There, management wants drastic changes in engineering staffing levels but the confer-

Fy

BLACK SECTIONS CAMPAIGN IN TGWU

The Black Section campaign took the fight for self-organisation to the heart of Britain’s largest union on June 17th. A motion from a Birmingham branch of the Transport and General Workers Union supporting our demand went before the union’s special Rules Revision Conference in Aberdeen.

Currently the T&G is opposed to Labour Party Black Sections. But this position has been reached as a result of views expressed on the General Executive Committee without any debate at rank and file level. New deputy general secretary Bill Morris spelt out the executive's opinion on Black Sections in a long article in the union journal. He attacked Black Sections as being ‘narrow’, ‘divisive’ and ‘sterile’.

But the T&G’s ill thought out position on the subject is littered with contradictions. For instance, despite being a big supporter of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, which has championed the ‘Right of Reply’, the T&G have refused to print the Black Section’s response to the Bill Morris salvo. Furthermore, a NALGO motion in support of Black caucuses was backed by all the large unions, including the T&G, at the

CONFERENCE

ence called for a ballot in support of industrial action within six weeks if negotiations fail to make progress.

Renationalisation ‘untenable’

Despite these gains the political nature of thngs to come was illustrated around renationalisation of BT. Although the union’s position was for nationalisation without compensation, and this is still the case, Golding made it clear from his point of view that such a policy was politically untenable for a Labour government and instead a government ‘bond issue’ should be considered. This was accepted by conference as it seemed, by a sleight of hand, that the original policy still stands, albeit just on paper.

Howerver, Golding received two political setbacks during the main conference when the Clerical and Engineering sections were together. They instructed him to resign his parliamentary seat, now that he was general secretary and proceeded to scold him in his frequent utterances to the right wing press. He defended himself by saying that he was often misquoted but the proposition was easily carried.

Abortion

A further, very important, gain was the affiliation to the National Abortion Campaign. Considering the patriarchal attitudes in this male dominated union, this was a considerable

TUC in 1984. This encouraged all affiliates to set up appropriate structures — like Black members groups — to adequately represent Black workers. In the same year, the T&G delegation to the London Labour Party regional conference voted in favour of Black Sections. And, later at national party conference the Agricultural workers and Dyers and Bleachers trade groups supported us. The T&G executive has since imposed its will on the huge block vote wielded by delegates,

A resolution in favour of Black Sections was on the agenda of last year’s T&G biennial delegate conference (BDC). Yet the leadership did not see fit to get it debated. This decision could not even be defended by Bill Morris. He admitted the union’s position on Black Sections lacked

‘moral legitimacy’ until it had gone before a BDC. BLACK SELF-ORGANISATION

The emergency resolution passed by the Birmingham branch, which went before this year’s Rules Revision Conference, gave the union such an opportunity to come clean. It supported the setting up of Black caucuses in the T&G and Black Sections in the Labour

REPORT

victory for a proposition supported by the minority clerical section, predominantly women. Also, conference decided to give financial support and arrange speaking tours for COSATU, the newly formed trade union organisetion in South Africa.

Although the conference went on to support left slates for TUC and Labour Party delegations, and chose Phil Holt, a prominent supporter of the Broad Left, as the Union’s Labour Party NEC nominee, there remains a lot of work to be done in the branches. There is no doubt that the ‘NCU Ist’ bloc will campaign and organise in the workplaces to undermine the large metropolitan left-wing branches in the coming period. The Broad Left has suffered a real defeat in recent ballots and has to address itself to local organisation, which it has general-

ly failed to do, and to take its policies into the membership and campaign for them vigorously. A national ban on overtime, 32 hours/4 day week, rejection of any redundancy agreements. renationalisation of BT without compensation of jobs are clear

and industrial action in defen Policies for the membership to rally around

R. Kramer, NCU (Engineering) and Brent South CLP

Briefing National Supplement page 17

Party. Bill Morris’ recent reverse when he failed to get on the TUC’s General Council, despite the backing of T&G general secretary Ron Todd, proves that if you are Black you cannot build a base on an all-white union executive. You must have a base among Black workers who are the lowest paid and least represented and you must fight for a mechanism called Black self-organisation which gives them a voice and a means of articulating their grievances,

The NALGO Black workers conference in Leeds last month proves that large unions are finally waking up to the need to help their members defeat racism. Indeed, TUC general secretary Norman Willis told a special Black workers conference unions should not see ‘unofficial Black members groups’ as a threat to their constitution. He warned that if Black workers felt unions did not care about their problems they would tur to other organisations.

We argue that the establishment of Black caucuses within the provision for T&G constitution is a logical extension of the union’s support at the TUC for ‘black members groups’. Black self-organisation allows a group of the oppressed to come together and formulate demands on how the general principles and organisation of the struggle for socialism within the union shall be applied in the Black community. At present women and youth are allotted specific representation within the unions, Labour Party, the National Executive Committee and the annual conference. Black people are not. Yét the structure of the Labour Party also finds space for societies such as the Labour Lawyers, the Co-op Party, Labour drinking clubs and a Jewish Labour Party called Poale Zion. To be consistent, the T&G hierarchy would also have to call these groups and indeed the trade unions themselves ‘divisive’ and ‘sectarian’ to the Labour Movement as a whole.

COMBATTING DISCRIMINATION

The T&G leadership has suggested, a commitment to racial equality is part and parcel of good trade unionism, then the Labour Movement should be at the forefront of the fight for our modest demand. It should be giving a full and fair hearing to the Black Sections movement instead of trying to muzzle the debate. Our experience is that when Black workers are allowed to decide for themselves as in NUPE. they support Black Sections.

Ashley Patel T&G Co-ordinator Labour Party Black Sections

Bg

Briefing National Supplement page 18

The teachers’ pay campaign has moved — temporarily — behind closed doors. The NUT is now participating in the talks set up by ACAS on pay, conditions of service and negotiating machinery. Alongside it, to its right, sit representatives of unions — most of them not affiliated to the TUC — who are to various degrees willing to make a deal that would toughen up conditions, increase management control through compulsory assessment, abandon ‘the demand for a return to 1974 pay levels, and set up a body which, in negotiating pay and conditions simultaneously will turn every pay claim into a ‘productivity’ issue. Unity?

The situation is serious: the longest pay campaign in the history of state education could terminate in a deal which would set in concrete a new and inadequate pay structure, as well as submitting the teaching force to new kinds of discipline. Yet the longer the ACAS talks go on, unaccompanied by large-scale industrial action, the more fatalistic some teachers will become about the inevitability of some such outcome. It is the responsibility of the NUT — particularly of the left of the NUT — to revitalise the campaign. Industrial action is central to this.

But there are other considerations too. First among them is the need to build alliances at school and local level between the NUT and members of the other TUCaffiliated union, the NAS/UWT. This point is vital — for the NUT is now (nationally, if not in London) a minority union. Unless it can develop an appeal to members of the NAS/UWT that undercuts the strategy of its national leadership —a strategy of buying pay increases with concessions on conditions — then the NUT’s position will be difficult.

But the NUT executive chooses not to see this. It pins its hopes on its own tactical adroitness in negotiations. Locked into mutual denunciation with an NAS/ UWT leadership that is tougher on the NUT than it is with the employers, the NUT executive could, through inactivity, help create a situation in which a trade off of conditions for pay seems inevitable.

Action and alliances

‘The issue is an important one. A left strategy for teachers can no longer be based simply on developments in the NUT. But there are other issues too. The NUT cannot afford to let the negotiations take their gentle course towards a sell-out. It must campaign massively among teachers to set out the demands it is fighting for: improved conditions, maximum class size, a single salary scale, a return to 1974 pay levels. It must draw up plans for the exrly relaunch of industrial action: reimposing the

“ban on voluntary activities, restarting strike action. It must turn a new attention towards the Labour Party, since it is now the Labour majority on the employers’ side which is pro-

moting the kind of linkage between pay and conditions which has underlain Tory strategy towards the teaching force for the last five years. There is at present not the level of awareness in the party that can impose limits on the bargaining fervour of the employers. And the union must lastly step up its efforts to convince parents that its position is a correct one.

Consequences

There is a danger that without an urgent emphasis on these issues the impetus of the last, two years could slacken decisively. Already the unions’ abandonment of opposition to GCSE has been a blow to teachers’ morale. That is why the question of action needs to be again placed on the agenda, and why all those forms of action — including ‘no cover’ — which NUT

The Silentnight dispute is now a year old. The core of strikers remain solidly committed to forcing the company to agree reinstatement and agreed national rates of pay. Behind the scenes the company’s hardline stance is weakening as falling trade and the boycott campaign squeeze Silentnight profits. The power to turn the screw lies very firmly in the hands of the Labour and Trade Union movement.

Thirty per cent of Silentnight outlets for their beds are in the various branches of the Co-op. The loss of this trade would force Silentnight to the wall. Some of this Co-op work has been lost where elected Co-op boards have terminated contracts. But these are very much the minority and the pressure of the boycott campaign must be turned on by Silentnight Strike supporters, With Silentnight tumover down for the year from £78 million to £71 million, the company are vulnerable

Rank and file teachers lobby the Burnham Committee.

SILENTNIGHT — FIRST ANNIVERSARY

members are continuing to take in the aftermath of the last pay round must be maintained.

Ken Jones, (Socialist Teachers Alliance & Hackney South CLP) SOCIALIST TEACHERS’ ALLIANCE AGM Saturday July 5th 11am to 5 pm

Central London Poly New Cavendish Street

For details contact: Martin Allen, 29 Greenhill Park, NW10. 01-961 6503

to economic pressure and greatly fear the loss of the major Co-op outlets.

The strikers have appealed for delegations to visit every Co-operative branch to lobby for an end to the contract. Local labour Councils and USDAW delegates from the Co-operative stores should join these delegations and back up their demands by threats of action against the Co-op stores. Where Co-ops are affiliated to local Labour Parties, their delegates should be mandated to take the issue up as a matter of urgency.

The often sentimental links between the Co-ops and the Labour movement have been questioned for many years. The elected boards should be asked to make clear which side of the dividing line they are on. Commercial criteria and Tom Clarke or the striking FTAT workers and their families is the choice that the Labour movement should be forcing into the open.

Boycott Silentnight beds!

APARTHEID — THE RUPTURED SOCIETY

The Botha regime in South Africa is facing a situation which it is increasingly unable to control. It now has to grapple, not only with the continuous mass violence in the Black townships but also with the rapid growth of the white reactionary backdash which had its clearest manifestation when the openly fascist Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging (AWB — Afrikander Resistance Movement) prevented Foreign Minister ‘Pik’ Botha from speaking at a National Party meeting in the Northern Transvaal in May.

The white National Party came to power in 1948 and since then has steadily consolidated its rule. It was able to maintain its governmental hegemony because it could rely on the overwhelming support of the all-white electorate, especially the Afrikaans-speaking section of the white population; and because the largely British and foreign big business and financial institutions were content to sit back and allow the Nats to get on with the job of governing. As the advent to power of the National Party and the introduction of apartheid coincided with a sharp upturn in the economy, apartheid was equated with increased profits. Because the army is largely made up of white conscripts, the regime could also rely on the support of the military and the predominantly white police force.

Now all this is shattered. With the government unable to bring the growing revolutionary movement in the townships under control, it began to lose the confidence of big business, both at home and overseas. Botha attempted to meet the situation with his programme of ‘reforms’, but by this time the Black youth and workers were no longer willing to accept any palliatives in the oppressive apartheid regime. The whole system had to go!

Emergence of the Right

Within the context of South African politics, it is difficult to conceive of a political organisation to the right of the tuling National Party. After all, who could be more right wing than Verwoerd, the principal architect of apartheid, or his successor Vorster, who was interned for his pro-Nazi sympathies during World War II? But, while Botha’s ‘teforms’ have failed to stop the violent resistance of the Blacks and have not satisfied South African or imperialist big business, it has raised fears in a section of the white — and especially Afrikander — population.

They see any concession to the Blacks as undermining their privileged economic and social standards. This was first shown by the break-away of a section of the ruling National Party by two. far right wing parties — the Conservative Party and the Herstigtee Nasionale Party. Both these parties, which have so far confined their opposition to the parliamentary field, have shown substantial gains in

recent by-elections.

P. Botha.

Botha’s response has been two-fold. By his raid against alleged ANC installations in Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, and his increased support for the Unita counter-revolutionaries in Angola and the MNR in Mozambique he is trying to show that when it comes to strong-arm stuff, he plays second fiddle to no one. Internally he is introducing new repressive measures by amending Section 50 of the Internal Security Act.

Furthermore, there is more than a suspicion that the police are actively promoting faction’ fights in Black communities, such as Crossroads. The so-called ‘vigilantes’, led by Johnson Ngxobongwana, are set on driving progressives out of the townships.

Democratic socialist

While Botha and his cabinet, which itself is split on how to deal with the issues which confront it, wrestle with these problems, seeking a solution which will go part of the way to satisfy interest groups in the capitalist world and his backwoods electorate, the Black masses are no longer looking to the government or ‘consultations for their own way out. More and more “the liberation movement has switched from what was essentially a liberal capitalist discourse to what has become a democratic social-

Briefing National Supplement page 19

TASS RENEGES ON KITSON

Widespread concern has been, expressed about the treatment of David Kitson by TASS — which has decided to ‘review’ the funding of his lecture post at Ruskin College, Oxford.

TASS have reneged on their 1969 promise made to David Kitson, who served nearly 20 years in arzrtheid jails, to offer him a ‘job for life’.

David Nellist, Labour MP for Coventry and TASS member, has written to Ken Gill:

‘It seems to me that the sacrifice made by Comrade Kitson of 20 years’ imprisonment in a South African jail, justified the original promise of our Union to help him build a new life. His refusal to denounce the City of London Anti Apartheid Group should not be the grounds for introducing a political test as to whether or not that promise should now be honoured...I feel he has proved his commitment to the struggle of the working class internationally by putting his life on the line in South Africa. Continuation of our Union’s financial support is scant reward for his life’s struggle and sacrifice — removal of that financial support amounts to victimisation at work on political grounds.”

David Kitson has said:

! | want TASS to stand by their promise | made to me and repeated for over 15 years, I have been in retirement for 20 years and am eager to get down to work at Ruskin without the restraints and stresses which have been placed upon me since I emerged from jail. After all, I am responsible to the students at Ruskin College and I want to be able to devote my time to them. I have always supported the African National Congress and shall continue to do so. At this juncture while South Africa is in flames, it is diversionary for the left in this country to get bogged down in this in-fighting, I certainly do not wish to be a party to it. Instead, I call upon all British people to turn out in full force on 28th June to March from Hyde Park against apartheid in South Africa.’

In addition, City Group, one of the most active anti-apartheid organisations in this country, has organised a non-stop 24 hours-aday picket of the South African Embassy in Trafalgar Square. This event, called to demand the release of Nelson Mandela, is now in its 60th day. All are welcome.

For further information contact: 38 Lothair Road North, London N4 IEW, or Steven Kitson, 01-354 5556.

Areig

ist discourse”. (Neville Alexander, New Internationalist No. 159, May 1986, p.10).

What will South African socialism look like? According to Neville Alexander: “Nobody here has a blueprint, and | think that’s one of the most exciting and exhilarating sides of the South African struggles... Leaving aside those people in the Communist Party who would agree to some form of Soviet model — and they're a very small minority of activists in South Africa today — I think people are still sorting out what they mean by socialism . . .” (ibid).

Charlie van Gelderen, (Brent South CLP)

Briefing National Supplement page 20

This year, Labour CND is calling for a straight-forward commitment from the Labour Party to get rid of all US bases. If we get a massive vote for this policy, it will strengthen the party’s support for unilateral nuclear disarmament.

© We have to spell out that all US bases must go, which means nuclear, conventional and communication bases because some Labour Party leaders think that only the nuclear bases have to go. This would mean that Reagan could carry on as before with facilities for FIII’s to fly out to another Libya bombing and for the essential NATO communication centres to continue their work as operational HQs for nuclear war planning from the US bases here. Let us be clear — all US bases must go. They are part of the special relationship between the UK and America which keeps us tied to the US foreign policy of global aggression. And we have to formally end that subordination by kicking the bases out as a first step on the way to an independent socialist foreign policy. This should be a popular policy. Labour CND calls on all CLPs to get resolutions and amendments into the conference.

© We are also pressing the party to adopt a policy to get out of NATO. It is no secret that NATO is a nuclear alliance dominated by America committed to a nuclear war fighting plan against the USSR in which nuclear weapons will be used first in a major conflict.

As a non-nuclear country, we should get out of the nuclear club, If we did so, the division of Europe into two armed camps would begin to break down as other countries have strong anti-NATO

Labour is already committed to closing down all nuclear bases. After American aggression against Libya there is growing support for a commitment to close down all foreign bases.

US bases — like merzbership of NATO — lock us into the American power bloc. They are a threat to the people of this country because:

1. They make us a target even after nuclear weapons have been sent back.

2. American nuclear operations in Europe are controlled from communication bases in Britain. Labour is not yet committed to close them down.

3. After nuclear weapons are sent back, America can easily move them back in a crisis — even without British consent — as long as she has bases here.

4. A British veto over America’s use of the bases does not exist. We have only the right to be consulted. But our views may be ignored.

Walter J. Wolfgang (Vice-chair Labour CND)

KICK THE US BASES din

“(TAD WwoUuseD “sg

CND Dediceatiation, Bayswater Road, 26th October 1985.

movements. Our fight for international peace cannot begin while we belong in NATO. We participate in the US aggression towards Nicaragua, we sell-out the Palestinians, we profit from apartheid, we give a pittance to the Third World and squander our resources in preparing for war — here and in space.

© In order to win the party to change the policy from total support for NATO to total rejection, Labour CND has published two resolutions for conference. One asks the party to look at the issue of UK membership of NATO with the option of withdrawal. The other calls for total withdrawal from NATO. We

President Reagan’s announcement that the US would cease their ‘technical compliance’ with the Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty never ratified by Congress, has provoked a predictable fury from the adherents of detente in East and West, and on both sides of the Atlantic. If the Pentagon goes ahead with the equipment of the modernised B-52 bomber with air-launched Cruise missiles this autumn, another relic of the 1970s era of US-USSR co-management of the arms race will have been destroyed. The formal demise of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, due for review in 1987 and already seriously eroded by the US decision to go ahead with the ‘Star Wars’ Strategic Defence Initiative, is then bound to follow. The entire arms control edifice of the detente phase in EastWest relations will have been dismantled.

One thing missing from the hostile reactions of the protagonists of detente was surprise. Nobody who has followed

THE MOURNING

hope that both will be debated at conference. We must win the vote this time at the least for a debate on the option for withdrawal.

Last year we had a massive vote for a public campaign for the policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. So far there has been silence. Once more conference will be asked to make the same demand, Our leaders must not be allowed to get away with it this time. We demand a public campaign for disarmament as agreed by massive votes at conference after conference. How about it Neil?

Joy Hurcombe ' Chair Labour CND (personal capacity.)

the evolution of US foreign policy under Reagan and Weinberger could have been under much illusion that SALT II was for the chop, The only element of surprise was in the timing of its announcement in the middle of delicate negotiations to prepare the second Reagan-Gorbachev summit. Presumably the British parliamentary delegation in Moscow was none too pleased with it either, having just delivered a letter from Thatcher urging strict compliance with agreed treaties!

As always with Reagan, Weinberger and Perle, however, there is method in the apparent madness, What better way of making clear that if there is be another summit — and few tears would be shed in Washington over its cancellation — it would be a summit on Reagan’s terms, what better way of scuppering any developing diplomacy between the West Europeans and Soviets on a territory which Washington claims its own? As one leading West German Christian Democrat

Irish women’s lack of democratic rights is a clear example of the ‘“‘carnival of reaction”’ James Connolly predicted following the 1916 Easter Rising defeat and the ensuing Civil War.

In the 1920s the Southern government passed socially repressive legislation — including on divorce. Cosgrave, Cumann naGael leader, explained “‘the whole fabric of our social organisation is based on the sanctity of the marriage bed and anything that tends to weaken the efficiency of that bond strikes at the root of our social life.”

During de Valera’s Fianna Fail government women were a special target. Women were barred from becoming teachers; the sale and importation of contraceptives were made illegal; the Conditions of Employment Act restricted female employment in other areas. All this led to the 1937 Constitution. It prohibits dovorce, contains deferential references to the Catholic Church, and firmly states that a woman’s place is in the home. The family is the basis of the Republic: the state recognises that ‘by her life within the home, woman gives to the state a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.”’

The Catholic Church influenced and dominated state policies due to its historical political association with the struggles of the Irish people. The combination of Church and State has had a massive numbing effect on the consciousness of women, and profound impact on women’s ability to struggle around questions in relation to the family.

Divorce Referendum

If passed, as is likely, the Divorce Referendum will make divorce available only to couples who have been separated for at least 5 years, and obtained a judicial separation at least 2 years ago. Special family courts will be established to deal

OF SALT

put it: ‘The fate of the US-Soviet treaty is too important for a decision to be

taken by Washington alone’, But for Washington it is too important to have the West Europeans meddle with it, NATO is expected to endorse, not to debate, criticise and modify Pentagon decisions: despite all the dissent, the NATO foreign ministers’ conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia was not even allowed to refer to SALT Il in its final communique.

Moscow used to share Washington’s desire to exclude the West Europeans, and especially the West Germans, from any decisions on these important matters, but the turn in American foreign policy is gradually forcing it to be bolder in seeking to mobilise Europe against America. But what can the Europeans do? The reality of the situation is that any open break with Washington would have to be paid for at an unacceptably

with divorce applications.

The campaign has been" brief, deliberately timetabled by the government, which has hampered feminists from taking the lead in the pro-divorce lobby. The issue splits the constitutional nationalist parties, Fianna Fail effectively siding with the Catholic Church to oppose divorce, Fine Gael attempting to gain background from the new Progressive Democrats, who have shot to popularity with their combined policies of right wing economics and left wing social issues.

The pro-divorce campaign has been led by bourgeois nationalists and bourgeois feminists, in an attempt to head off anti-imperialist women who support divorce, but oppose the Church and State’s control of their lives. The Progressive democrats epitomise this new attempt to co-opt the women’s movement on a non-class, nonnationalist basis. And Fine Gael’s record does not make it the champion of women’s rights. The Referendum serves a political purpose for them. Legalising divorce will be seen as a gesture to the Protestants. If the Referendum is passed, social legislation in the South will be far in advance of that in the North. Divorce is then seen in the context of the re-alignment associated with the Accord, making the Catholic South a more acceptable proposition for Britain, Europe and the USA.

Sinn Fein

Sinn Fein’s relative absence from the divorce campaign is a worrying sign that they will not take on board the recent gains won on women’s issues, and raises yet again the debate between feminists and the republican left on women’s liberation.

But there is no guarantee that the Referendum will succeed. The campaign conducted by the Church and the far right is frightening. The Catholic hierarchy has issued a 16-pgae pastoral opposing divorce, distributed to every home. Archbishop Kevin McNamara, the most outspoken opponent, has compared the introduction of divorce with the Chernobyl nuclear diaster! And every priest is instructed to speak on it every Sunday until 26th June.

| | by Gunter Minnerup

high price in terms of economic and ideological «destabilisation, so a change in Washington is the only hope. The Soviets ‘know that Reagan’s plans on Star Wars, on underground tests, and on SALT II can still be frustrated by a Congress which clings to the more rational views of former Presidents’, writes Denis Healey in the ‘Observer’. Of course they can, but will they? And what if they aren't?

Yesterday’s men in Europe are tied to yesterday’s men in America. But it is unlikely that there will be a return to yesterday in international politics, a return to the era of detente as not only Healey and Co., but also many in the peace movement are still hoping. The signs today are pointing to war tomorrow. Winning the peace requires bolder initiatives than reading the entrails of Congressional manouevres in Washington,

Briefing National Supplement page 21

DIVORCE REFERENDUM IN IRELAND

The anti-divorce campaign is run by a small group of powerful people, who formed the ProLife Amendment Campaign, linked to the Knights of Columbanus. PLAC were jubilant over their victory on abortion and encouraged by leaders of the US pro-life movement thut there was more work to be done: that the “‘contraceptive mentality” had taken hold in Ireland and would further erode the social and moral values.

Feminists and socialists in Britain welcome a relaxation of the Divorce laws in Ireland, but we should be in no doubt that the initiative comes as another pawn in the Southern bourgeoisie’s play for a stake in Europe and the western alliances, not to further the liberation of Irish women.

‘And we should not be complaceut. The House of Lords has just approved an amendment to the Education Bill to provide that sex education should include “moral considerations and the value of family life.”

Stephanie Grant Islington South and Finsbury CLP

——

OLD BAILEY SHOW TRIALS

The systematic abuse of defendants and their rights, media bias and police attempts to intimidate and silence peaceful protests, especially around Irish issues, has been highlighted once again in the Old Bailey trial of four people accused of conspiracy to cause explosions and of Patrick Magee who was convicted of the “Brighton bombing”.

Since last July, two of the defendants — Martina Anderson and Ella O’Dwyer — have been subject to constant harassment while on remand in Brixton prison. They have been denied proper medical attention and are each strip-searched an average of 50 times a month. Despite the fact that this is clearly designed to degrade and humiliate the women before and during their trial, the High Court refused to rule that this level of strip-searching was unlawful. All the defendants are strip-searched before and after court visits and after visits from relatives.

The refusal to grant a separate trial to the defendants not accused of the Brighton bombing has meant that press and TV coverage continue to link the cases, as does the prosecution who is not restrained by the judge. On the third day of the trial, the Defence asked for the jury to be changed because the media coverage would affect their impartiality, but this request was refused. Protestors outside the court have been subjected to constant police harassment since the first day of the trial. Many arrests have been made, despite the fact that all the protests have been peaceful and the police appear to be determined to intimidate people into not demonstrating on similar issues in the future.

Frank Gillon, Hackney N. and Stoke Newington CLP (in personal capacity)

Briefing National Supplement page 22

The ostensible purpose of the events was to raise money in aid, The target was 100 million pounds. In this country, by the beginning of June, 5 million had been collected, with much more expected. Now of course such sums can do some good and will save some lives, But in global terms they are of infinitesimal significance. At present the accumulated debt of the 88 ‘Third World’ countries stands at 900 billion dollars. The annual interest payments on this amount to around 45 billion a year. To estimate the total amount which is sucked from the ‘Third World’ to the Imperialist centres you probably have to add as much again for clandestine capital exports and repatriation of profits. Even were ‘Sport Aid’ to reach its target, the sum would be no more than 0.2% of that which, every year is taken from

the ‘Third World’, Ngugu wa Thiongo, the Kenyan

writer, referred to the response of the West to starvation in Africa through a story. He said it is like a thief who comes in the night and steals all ten shirts that you possess. In the morning he returns and sees you freezing in the cold wind. Here, says the thief, I see that you are cold, take one shirt to keep you warm. Then the thief expects your thanks and to be treated as your saviour. This story raises the crucial point at issue, What is significant is not whether or not the single shirt will keep one warm, but rather whether the ‘gift? will succeed in covering the original theft. In other words, the real significance of ‘Sport Aid’ lies not so much in the sums it raises but rather in whether it results in a legitimation or an opposition to Imperialist domination of the ‘Third World’.

DISTORTED PICTURE

The answer to this question is not straightforward, for different sources have sought to harness ‘Sport Aid’ to different ends. To focus on any one to the exclusion of all others is bound to lead to a distorted picture. One must, at the very least separate out the actions of the government, the media and the event organisers. The position of the government is very clear. Margaret Thatcher meets Omar Khalifa, Geoffrey Howe calls for support for ‘Sport Aid’ at the same time as refusing to increase the amount given in official ‘aid’ from 0.3% of GNP. In fact the amount which the Tories have withdrawn in aid outweighs all the money donated through Band Aid, Sport Aid and all their spinoffs. For this government, then, Sport Aid is complementary to increased

THE LEFT

SPORT AID: THE ATTITUDE OF

Steve Reicher (Exeter Briefing)

Around the world it is estimated that some 30 million people participated in ‘Sport Aid’ events. In Britain the participation was equally phenomenal. London saw 200,000 people running, and for each runner several more were watching or sponsoring. Ever in Exeter, a city of 100,000 people, nearly 14,000 people covered the 10km. It is clear that ‘Sport Aid’ is a mass social phenomenon that cannot and should not be ignored. But what does it represent and how should we in the left orientate towards it?

Underground metal-shaping workshop for

exploitation. It is used to avoid the responsibilities of government and big business, as well as to promote the Victorian values of self-reliance.

The response of the media has been to provide an ideological cover for the official reaction. The images with which we have been fed portray Africa as a starving child in need of the West’s helping hand. It is up to us to save Africa. No clues are given as to why the child is starving, no-one shows images of the wealth stolen from the child’s land. In this way the image can only be read as Africa, incapable of looking after itself, and the West as benevolent, coming to its help. The imagery reproduces the essential core of British imperialist ideology. It is the ‘white man’s burden’ all over again. It isn’t that we want to be in Africa, it’s just that they need the benefits of our system since they get into such a mess left on their own. Ron Pickering encapsulated this myth of benevolent capitalism in commentating on the run itself. ‘These are’, he said, ‘market forces put to their very best use’, Thus the media collude with government in using Sport Aid to cover up the real causes of starvation and even to paint the villain as hero.

RACIST PATERNALISM

The position of the ‘Band Aid/Sport Aid’ organisers themselves is more ambiguous. Certainly there are elements of paternalism and ethnocentrism in their actions. One need only consider the title ‘do they know it’s christmas’ to be aware of that. Indeed, as has been pointed out, the very symbol of Band Aid displays cultural ethnocentrism — a plate with knife and fork ignores the fact that most Africans cat with their hands. On the other hand the overt political statements have mixed good with bad. There are few people who could get onto the front page of national papers by referring to a minister's

spare parts for trucks at Sheab, Eritrea.

speech as ‘crap’ — the word used by Geldorf to describe Howe’s refusal to increase British aid to Africa. Geldorf has even suggested that ‘Third World’ debts be written off. In this way he has pointed to the responsibility of governments and bankers in perpetuating under-development.

At the same time, however, Geldorf seeks to be even-handed by laying blame on African governments, branding them as ‘thugs’. While few would want to defend, say, the actions of the Ethiopian government in Eritrea, to make everybody equally responsible only clouds the issue. It obscures the primary responsibility of imperialism for the economic destitution and consequent political instability of many African countries. It also feeds back into racist paternalism by suggesting that it is true that Africans can’t look after themselves and that we still must intervene.

His trip around Africa bore an uncanny resemblance to the many Tarzan films in which the white man, in a day, solves the problems that primitives have wrestled with for the ages. He is nothing but positive when he uses his iconoclasm to expose British and European imperialism. When he tries to sort out Africa he plays a very dangerous role.

What, then, of the actual participants in Sport Aid? Are they moved by paternalism or by anger at what our politicians and capitalists are doing? The answer remains open, yet it is probably that both elements are included — not simply in the sense that there are some people on either side, but in that the consciousness of individual participants is contradictory. Whether it remains contradictory or resolves to one position or the other will depend on the specific initiatives which can guide peoples action. One thing is for sure however, were but a fraction of those involved in Sport Aid mobilised around political demands to cancel the ‘Third World’ debt and in support of the economic and political liberation of African

FINEEOM ROLE AER OGLObLon

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

For the hard left to slag off the Sports Aid and Live Aid attempts to answer starvation and poverty in Africa (and, by impliction, to separate themselves from the millions who support these efforts) invites the obvious question: what are you doing instead?

Of course it is easy to score cheap points over Bob Geldof’s political naivety; off the comfortable, mostly white, celebrities who have backed the fundraising schemes; off the bizarre spectacle of the American offshoot — with its gaggle of posing millionaire has-beens claiming in schmaltzy style that ‘‘We are the world’’; and off the generally uncomfortable feeling that the cash raised is only a drop in an ocean of hunger opened up by imperialist exploitation.

But the limitations are not all of Geldof’s choice or making: many reflect the backwardness of the British workers’ movement.

When Geldof uses public platforms and the mass media to denounce Tory aid Policies as ‘‘crap’’, and call for the cancellation of Africa’s $175 billion debts to Western banks, he strikes a popular chord: people ask why haven’t our union and Labour Party leaders been as Sorthright?

The deafening silence from the official labour movement has been largely matched by an absence of any serious campaigning by the hard left for any alternative form of international solidarity or anti-imperialism policy to fight the famine.

Of course some Live Aid support is patronising, even cyncial support from middle class liberals content with their place in the system. But to reduce it to this alone is to miss out an important aspect of solidarity and genuine concern.

Do those who denounce the campaigns as patronising feel it would somehow be better if people ignored the starvation of millions in Africa? Is it a serious “‘internationalism”’ which refuses to take a view on this horror, and makes some sindef principle of not getting involved?

Should the striking miners have rejected the “conscience money”? chipped into collections from guilt-ridden liberals? Doesn’t every appeal for solidarity seek to persuade us to identify emotionally with those in the front line?

Live Aid and Sports Aid have succeeded brilliantly on this level: they have made no

countries it would be a movement of key domestic and international significance.

So far the left has polarised around the question of Band Aid/Sport Aid. It has tended to either reject it out of hand or support it uncritically. Both orientations have excluded an effective intervention. As argued at the start we cannot ignore the phenomenon, we must get involved but on the basis of exposing the role of paternalism in perpetuating exploitation and addressing the movement to :he tole of British Imperialism in Africa.

attempt to provide a rounded political answer. But they have shaken the thinking of millions: the rest is up to us.

My NUJ branch moved a successful resolution at the 1985 NUJ conference calling for an initiative by the European trade unions to link up and establish their own policy for labour movement action on famine. One reason this was never implemented was because no other unions

John Lister (Oxford NUJ)

have taken up the issue. They have all left it to Geldof.

How about a campaign to raise the voice of the organised British working class against the starvation of millions by British bankers and monopolies?

Let’s do something to build on the present public awarenes: then if Geldof and company attack us, we could have some real basis to slag them off!

Time to Challenge Your Racism

Dear Labour Briefing,

Thank you for printing my article about Third World First and our conference on aid on July 12th. It was unfortunate that you chose to illustrate it as you did. It was a picture of African people as passive victims, exactly the kind of imagery we are trying to get away from. Yes, refugee camps are a large fact of life in the Horn of Africa, but it is not the only fact of life there, though from the media it would be hard to believe.

Hardly anyone seems prepared to show Pictures of Africams at work, tackling for themselves the problems that face them. Pictures of action where they do occur are usually of white agency workers. Do you really think that Africans sit back in the face of hardship waiting for a white angel to rescue them? Is that what you do in your struggles? And would you illustrate an article about men’s stereotyping and misconceptions of women with uncaptioned pornography or a picture of a battered woman?

Yes, that’s life too, but surely you would want to promote a more positive image of women. ‘Why does the left think it can get away with turning African people into objects of pornography? Come on, you so-called radicals, it’s time to challenge your racism (as I said in my original article) and find out — if you don’t know — about the work of the liberation

movement in Eritrea and Tigray and other parts, against the oppressive Ethiopian government, which is the main perpetrator of famine in that area — and highlight African people’ achievements for once, rather than their degradation.

(More information — 3W1, 8 Lower Clapton Rd, London ES. 01-986 4800).

Mary Wright Homerton Ward (Hackney South CLP)

PS: Please use as many of the photos as possible. All of them should be credited to the Eritrean Relief Association.

Could you add a general caption to all of them that these activities go on in the face of enormous hardship, with scanty financial resources and constant bombardment by the Ethiopian army — but that morale is high, and commitment to the struggle strong.

Editor’s comment: Thank you for correcting our error. Other authors should take note, though: please send'your own graphics with articles. Don’t rely on us!

Grinding mill for grains in a liberated area of Eritrea.

Briefing National Supplement page 23

WHAT ABOUT LEFT AID?

Association

Erirrean Relic.

Briefing National Supplement page 24

TURN BACK THE GREY TIDE!

The right wing of the labour movement has been getting away with murder: policies and principles have been slaughtered. Kinnock, Hattersley and a cabal of union bureaucrats have been setting the agenda and setting the pace towards a new witch-hunt.

New alignments have helped the ‘‘new realists’’. Urging on the process of ditching and diluting Labour’s policies have been:

@ The new Tribune @ The new Livingstone @ The new New Socialist @ The new Marxism Today

All these elements are central to the new grey election campaign (never

mind the politics, feel the breadth!).

But beneath the thin veneer of “‘new’”’ politics lurks the same old reality: Kinnock’s gang are limbering up for a period of Wilson-style Labour government pledged to capitalist policies, and certain to attack the working class.

We can’t yet stop the careerist bandwagon which Kinnock is driving, or

stop some former left wingers jumping aboard. But we don’t have to concede the initiative to the right wing.

We can begin to organise the hard left to fight back in defence of socialist policies, class struggle methods, and the demands of the oppressed.

That’s why we need the new, fortnightly paper to be launched in the autumn, which will expand and improve upon the present Labour Briefing.

The new Briefing will argue for the policies which the labour movement needs to fight back against Thatcher and combat Kinnock’s retreat.

Our aim is to stop the rot. Our allies and audience are the most militant forces in the trade unions, the Labour Parties, women’s campaigns and struggles, black struggles, the Lesbian and Gay movement and among young people — anyone committed to the fight for a socialist solution to the crisis.

The new paper will be tighter in focus, harder-hitting in its line, but broader in scope than the present Briefing. |t will still be democratically run, and offer a forum for debate as well as a basis for organising the left. It will be basic reading for activists, but understandable to workers on picket lines and firsttime readers.

The campaign for the new paper was launched at a 200-strong conference in May. Now we need YOUR support to help raise the funds and assemble a network of sellers and supporters.

If you agree that it is time we fought back against the witch-hunt and the right wing rampage, we urge you to:

@Join our ‘500 Club’’ scheme: pay £1 per week towards the Launch Fund of £8,000 — and be entered for a weekly £25 Draw! (See standing

order form alongside)

@ Make a donation to the launch fund: send cheques (payable to Labour Briefing No. 2 account) to: Launch Fund, 162 Millfields Rd, London E5.

@ Pledge a regular sale of the new paper in your workplace, Labour Party or neighbourhood. Order your copies of our Pilot Issue (out July 15th) from Millfields Rd.

@Tell your local comrades about it: organise a Launch Meeting, with a speaker from Briefing (write in, or tel. 01-533 2593).

@ Subscribe to the paper — £12 per year.

@ Order copies of our Turn Back the Grey Tide leaflet to spread the word and promote the new. Briefing from 39, Talia House, Manchester Rd, London £14 SHB.

CONTACT US for any further details. TOGETHER WE can Turn the Tide!

Briefing 500 Club

Help us build the fortnightly Briefing Win £25 in a weekly prize

draw!

Pledge us only £1 per week, £4 per month for the Fund to launch the new fortnightly Labour Briefing newspaper. Our aim is to enlist at least 500 supporters, to enable us to launch the new paper by Labour Party conference 1986, and to sustain its regular publication as the paper of the hard left in the labour movement.

As soon as we have 200 supporters signed up, we will begin a weekly draw for a £25 prize payout. When we reach 400 supporters we will double the prize money to two £25 lucky number prizes.

To enter the draw, simply complete the Bankers Order form below and send it to Labour Briefing. As soon as we recieve it, your number will be entered for the first draw: we will forward the form to your bank. A Supporters’ Club card will be sent to you in acknowledgement, showing your lucky number.

This money is entirely separate from other Labour Briefing finance, and will all be earmarked for the launch fund target of £8,000 to set up the fortnightly paper.

Sign up now: and when you join the 500 Club why not order extra forms to take round your local Labour Parties, trade unions and other campaigns. Help us build the base for the fortnightly!

Bankers Order form for Labour Briefing 500

Club Please complete every section of this form, and then return it to: Labour Briefing, c/o Jane Kelly, 26 Crofton Rd, London SE5.

Bankers Order

(te

At (address) ..

From: ..

(your address) ..

My account number is:

Please debit from my account each month the sum of £4, in favour of Labour Briefing No 2 account,Co-operative Bank, Stratford E15, Code 08-90-76, Account No. 50349957.

Starting on ....

Thereafter on (date) of each month

Signature ..

Dated ....

———LABOUR-TAKE THE POWER!——

Typeset by Breed N Roses [TU]. Printed by Wernham Printers Ltd [TU]

Published by Labour Briefing, 162 Millfields Roed, E5.

LEWISHAM: ALTERNATIVES

TO JON LANSMAN

Jon Lansman writes with a poison pen. His fantasy account and assessment of the first meetings of the new Lewisham Labour Group are both insulting and misleading — apart from being racist and sexist in an insidiously patronising way

Jon refers to the self-styled ‘Left Caucus’’ of members meeting before they had been elected. So who decided who was to be invited — Jon himself? Who is he to determine who is to be classified as right wing, centrist, careerist, sycophantic, malevolent, soft or hard left?

Such a self-assumed right to judge others is both arrogant and smacks of little boy ganging-up games.

The main criticism of Jon Lansman, however, must be of his ill-considered and crude attempt to manipulate newly elected comrades, both black and white, to establish what he considers to be the correct election of Group officers, Chairs and Vice-Chairs. By trying to exercise a caucus patronage, which anyway failed to deliver the goods, he is guilty of using, or trying to use, black and women comrades as tokens in office rather than recognising their individual qualities as people.

Moreover, his obsession with power betrays his misjudged hierarchical view of Group and Party democracy, a top down Stralinist model, with centralised decision making and all power to the Leader and Chairs. He fails to realise that the Party

Malcolm Skeggs, an active fascist, and organiser of the British National Party’s book service, previously a member of the National Front and a Parliamentary candidate for that party in the 1970's, has just been sacked from Lewisham Council's Library service. Skeggs had worked for Lewisham Council for 24 years and had up till recently held the post of Librarianin-charge at Lewisham’s main reference library. According to assurances so far given, no Chair of Leisure Services, Leader or Deputy Leader knew anything about Skeggs fascist activities until March this year, despite a long history of trouble beginning with an allegation in the late °70s that Skeggs was throwing away copies of Spectrum, allegations that a black member of staff had asked for a transfer because of Skeggs activities, and a Jewish member of the public had refused to give Skeggs an address because he was a “known fascist”. All this, we are told, went unnoticed until another allegation led to a formal disciplinary hearing on April 17 this year. Skeggs had admitted using the council's photocopier to copy Spearhead and “occasionally” leaving the building without permission to visit the post office. The disciplinary hearing found separate allegations against

and the Group have outgrown and discarded this approach — and he should have more trust in his comrades across the Party spectrum to act as accountable Socialists. He also needs to resist the temptation to sneer at and denigrate those who happen not to agree with him. To insult others who do not support you or agree with you is the mark of the bully and the boor.

Lewisham Labour Group deserve a better press than Jon Lansman has given himself or us.

Cllr Ron Pepper E. Lewisham Labour Party

Dear Briefing,

1 was taken aback to see the comments that Cllr. Jon Lansman made in your last issue about recent political events within Lewisham’s new Labour group. The facts of the situation — and the interpretation which should be put on them are — in my opinion — very much at variance with those expressed in Jon Lansman’s article. [ have therefore decided to write to you with ‘another view’.

Firstly, Jon claims with breathtaking chauvinism Lewisham’s electoral success. for Deptford CLP, and in particular those who share his own view of ‘left’ politics. The facts differ — of 11 gained seats, six were taken from the Tories in the East and West Lewisham CLPs. More interesting is the fact that of the eleven victorious councillors, only one is a member of Jon’s caucus.

‘Downright malicious or sycophantic’ is how

FASCIST SACKING: WAS THERE A COVER-UP?

Skeggs proven and the “penalty” was a written warning and a transfer to a specially created post where he would not be in contact with the public!

There was a determined effort to prevent the matter from being discussed at Group meetings until the local NALGO branch passed a resolution calling for Skeggs dismissal and circulated it to all group members. This resulted in the usual “investigation” delaying discussion for another couple of weeks. This approach made the situation even more difficult because it allowed Skeggs to apply to join a union for the first time in 24 years, and to their disgrace, the local branch of NUPE Officers allowed this fascist, whose Party would smash every trade union in the country if they could, to join. The issue finally came to the Labour Group for a full discussion on 9 June, despite a recommendation for the soft option of more “investigations” and “monitoring” of Skeggs, coupled with an attempt to divert attention into wider issues of new terms of employment, etc. After full consideration of all the possible repercussions both in terms of industrial relations and legal action, Lewisham Labour Group voted decisively to sack Skeggs immediately.

London Labour Briefing page 5

he describes many of his colleagues on the Council ~ those whom he does not patronise as ‘well intentioned’ but not in the real ‘in-crowd’ and later as people there to be manipulated or in Jon’s words not alienated — yet. Strange, as he has now alienated an awful lot of people.

More disturbing are Jon’s attempts to manipulate other groups of councillors — women and black people. I do not wish to get involved in a long debate as to who said what to who — it is, however, undeniable that the activities of the caucus of which Jon Lansman is a leading member played a significant pert in creating a climate in which black councillors saw themselves being excluded from decision making. It is also true that two members of this caucus contributed to a lot of the male aggression and insensitivity which wrecked the first group meeting.

In a paper written by Man Mohan, and circulated to all group members, Man says:

“Blacks are denied equality of opportunity because party members evaluate them not in terms of the individual strenghts and weaknesses they offer to the party, but in terms of their colour.”

Many of us need to recognise this statement of fact and change the way we behave, and the decisions we take, as a result of it. Cynical attempts to distort the processes of racism for short term political gain will be seen through. So will attempts in the left press to assume the mantle of all-round leader of, and mediator on behalf of, other people. Think about it, Jon. Please.

Yours in comradeship,

Gavin Moore

A few questions still remain. Why was discussion of this matter by the Group prevented for two months? Why were Skeggs activities covered up for so long? Was the cover up by officers or members of the Group? Why did it take a circular from a trade union to force this on the agenda? One question is answered. The current Labour Group in Lewisham is prepared to act against fascists and will not take soft options on that issue. If we can show the same resolve and political will on other issues over the next four years, we will be able to look back on this term with considerable pride.

Cllr. Pat Waylett, Hither Green Branch, East Lewisham CLP

DEPTFORD WOMEN’S SECTION

Fund raising social and a chance to meet women who are interested in standing as Parliamentary Candidate in Deptford. Food ... Drink .. . Raffle . . . Disco The Labour Club, Limes Grove, Lewisham SE13, Saturday 28 June at 8.00pm. High salaried — £5.00; low waged — £2.50; unwaged — £1.00. Children free. Women only.

London Labour Briefing page 6

HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM: STOP THE EXCUSES!

Hammersmith and Fulham Labour Parties produce a newspaper called The Herald which is distributed throughout the Borough. It was planned to produce a special edition after the Council elections to explain to the public why the new Labour Council would be unable to implement its Manifesto policies in its first year of office. Excuses would be the central theme.

Well, Labour won a thumping majority on 8th May, bigger than most people expected, and the size of our victory was a reflection cf the high expectations which thousands of working class people have of the new administration. It is unfortunate therefore that the prevailing feeling among a large number of Labour councillors after May 8th was one of resigned pessimism about the prospects for progress in the immediate future, because the Tories had set the rate and left us with a cuts budget. A local newspaper summed up this view: “But confined by cash limits during its first year of office the Labour administration will probably have to content itself with publicising its new image and revelling in its new-found power.”’

Fortunately The Herald did not appear. The excuses were not made. What is more, the Labour Group has now accepted a proposal to secure a defered purchase facility of £100 million in order to be able to deliver a capital programme over the next four years in line with our Manifesto commitments.

However, that decision was not achieved without effort. There had beén no attempt, a month after the elections, by either Chief Officers or the Group leadership to produce a strategy for financing our Manifesto commitments. The initiative for deferred purchase came from elsewhere and was due to a determination among comrades to make certain that we have the resources to implement a capital programme, in line with our promises, despite the additional revenue costs in future years.

Revenue Spending

We are still left with the problem of revenue spending on services this year. Four weeks after our election victory Chief Offiers and the Group leadership had failed to explain to councillors (most of them newly-elected) what options were available to them, including the scope for capitalisation. On 2nd June the Leader of the Group, Gordon Prentice, told a Group meeting that only £840,000 more than the Tories had budgetted for was available for this year. That would only allow us to increase the nef revenue budgets of existing committes by 1%, while newly-established committees would get the following initial allocations:

Ethnic Minorities £50,000 Women’s £50,000 Decentralisation £10,000 Police £25,000

Community Organisations £50,000

Budgets would be reviewed in six weeks’ time (i.e. the end of July) and, if additional resources could be found, they would be allocated to committees then.

Derisory Allocations

The allocations to the new committees can only be described as derisory and represent blatant backsliding on some of our most important commitments. But a 1% increase for existing committees also means that virtually none of our policies can be implemented.

The proposal for a review in July was a deliberate delaying tactic. If additional allocations are not made until late July committees will not be able to consider them until the next cycle in September and October. It can take three to four months to get new staff in post. The July review would thus have meant many new staff not being in post until January 1987.

The sad thing about recent debates has been the failure of several comrades to grasp the fact that capitalisation of housing repairs, and other items currently funded from revenue, can release millions of pounds more for an immediate expansion of services and that other Labour Councils which are rate-capped (as we effectively are this year) have been using this device for years.

The debate on 2nd June was inconclusive. The Group refused a proposal to capitalise and increase budgets immediately by £6 million, but they agreed “‘in principle” to capitalisation and to bring the review forward to the end of June. The battle will resume then.

The “battle” centres around one fundamental principle — whether or not we do all in our power to implement our Manifesto. For socialists there should be no question about this. Our Manifesto was a very radical document in

that it identified needs in a very detailed way and included a pledge to secure the resources to meet those needs. It is our duty now, and the duty of every Labour Authority (ILEA too) to make the maximum possible use of every device such as deferred purchase and capitalisation in order to increase expenditure to meet needs.

Building up debts for future years is not something we should worry about. It is something we should carefully plan. We are not mortgaging the future. We are investing in the present and providing vitally-needed services for the people who elected us. Of course the crunch will come when the debt charges build up and it is essential that we prepare for that politically. We must realise, though, that the answer is a political one and we must not be diverted from our understanding of that by Finance officers whose ideas about sound finanical management are too often clouded by a static view of politics.

We know we will be forced into a position of not asking but demanding that the next Government, hopefully Labour, should pour millions of pounds into local government in order to protect and extend the programmes and policies which we have started. We should not shy away from this. We should plan for it. The more Labour Authorities that have built up their debt charges and are faced with a cash crisis in 1989/90 the better if that means more local authorities being forced to take on the Government if it fails to deliver the goods.

What is at stake after all is not some abstract principle but whether we do all in our power to implement socialist policies, on the one hand, or we rest on our proverbials, “‘revelling in power” while making excuses for inaction, on the other. Let’s stop making excuses, comrades.

Ian Harrison Chair of Housing Hammersmith & Fulham Council

Lambeth: Support the

The issue of legality and its possible conflict with Labour Party policy will be the basis of a continuing debate as local councils — many newly elected with Labour majorities — begin to implement the policies for which they were elected. Privatisation, the possible wholesale closure of parts of council direct labour departments, ratecapping and a steam of likely new legislation will combine to create a

major challenge to how Labour governs at local level throughout Britain.

The one council where Labour councillors have already made a stand — Lambeth, where 31 Labour members were removed from office and face huge surcharges — produced a significant swing to the party in the May 8th elections. A majority of two was transformed into a majority of 14, despite the Tories and Alliance openly making ‘law and order” an electoral issue by claiming the disqualified Labour members had acted illegally.

And still in Lambeth the new left-led council may face its first test on the legality issue when, as appears possible, housing and finance officers say there is a need for the authority to increase its rents for the 43,000 households where the council is the landlord.

Lambeth’s manifesto was clear — no increase in rents.

There is little doubt that some of the officer hierarchy will be presenting the spectre of the District Auditor, and the fate of the surcharged 31, as reasons why the new Labour majority should not risk any move which could be open to legal challenge.

Certainly there will be plenty of frightening stories to be looked at: the surcharged and disqualified councillors have to pay their £106,000 ‘“‘first’” surcharge in monthly sums of £5,000; the District Auditor has made it clear he may examine the council’s books in the autumn to assess further sums up to £500,000 which he may claim had been lost as a result of the old council’s support for London and

London Labour Briefing page 7

GLEB: STOP THE REDUNDANCIES

There is growing concern among London labour movement activists at what appears to be an attempt by the right to exploit the confusion created by the abolition of the GLC to seize control and transform the Greater London Enterprise Board. Right wingers on the

GLEB board have been pushing through redundancies in

some of GLEB’s progressive policies.

The abolition of the GLC created a political vacuum in the control of GLEB which has now been assumed by a consortium of mainly Labour boroughs. ‘Although following the May 8 elections the Labour boroughs have appointed a new board, the period since abolition of the GLC has been one of considerable confusion.

Redundancies

A retrenchment plan, involving the downgrading of some of GLEB’s prolabour movement strategic and social policies in favour of profit oriented investment and making some 20 per cent of GLEB staff redundant, was initiated by a right wing board caucus led by SDP supporter, London Business School Professor Tony Eccles, and a senior British Telecom manager, Maureen Donnelly with support from Labour right winger and Shell Oil executive, Peter Lane, The planned redundancies were revealed before consultation had even started with the ASTMS at GLEB and this has already led to strikes and protests by GLEB trade unionists.

The plan was given initial and uncertain backing by an interim group of London Labour borough representatives on the GLEB board. They were heavily criticised for backing a strategy of sackings without consultation with either GLEB staff or even with their borough Labour

groups when ALA leaders met at the beginning of May. There was also concern expressed at reports that some leading GLEB left wingers had already been told they would be made redundant if they did not resign before the plan was even put to the full GLEB board.

Right wing majority

Following this meeting and the strike by GLEB staff, the GLEB board agreed to demands by left wingers on the board — led by Anti-Apartheid vice president Vella Pilla and Doreen Massey — to delay any redundancies until the finances of GLEB had been checked out and consultations had taken place with GLEB staff. But while discussions are continuing about GLEB’s future strategy, the right wing board majority led by John Wakeham of Camden, are determined to push through staff cuts and policy changes.

Already the left wing chair of the old GLEB Board, the London TGWU Regional Secretary, Sid Staden, has been replaced. Other left wingers disgusted at what has happened are considering whether to resign. They fear that the board majority want to steer GLEB away from developing alternative economic and industrial policies to those of the Labour leadership.

It is accepted by all that considerable problems have been caused by the deliberate attempted sabotage of GLEB by

Surcharged Councillors

national Labour policy of defending jobs and services; and, to add insult to injury, the 31 will have to pay the DA’s legal costs — possibly in one lump sum — and it is likely they will total more than £100,000!

Power of the State

The power of the state and the way it can ruthlessly threaten and attack people’s living standards and livelihoods has had no better demonstration. Even now, with the councillors and their supporters paying the surcharges on a monthly basis, any default can result in the immediate confiscation of property and the likely consequences of bankruptcy.

But with the prospect of massive sums being demanded by the DA within the next few months, it is essential that all those comrades — most of whom were advocates of the policies on which Lambeth’s surcharged councillors stood firm — now commit themselves to politically stand by that position... and financially assist those paying the price of implementing Labour policies under the Thatcher government. The standing order printed elsewhere in this

copy of Briefing is the only real way of expressing that support — fill it in now and send it to the Fighting Fund.

Do Not Stand Alone

Those expressions of support will not only assist those presently being penalised — they can also send out a message to the right wing of the labour movement and to the government that comrades like those in Lambeth do not stand alone.

When other councils in the coming months meet face-to-face with laws set up ruthlessly by the government simply to frustrate Labour policies, the councillors in the front line will need to know the support of the rank and file is with them.

Financial support and backing for the position of Lambeth when it is discussed at the October Labour Party conference in Blackpool is now a minimum demand.

Support the surcharged councillors — and help the new Labour authorities to stand firm.

Graham Norwood Surcharged Lambeth Councillor

the organisation, starting with leading left wingers, while covertly discarding

the Tory government at the time of GLC abolition, including the withholding by the Department of the Environment of funds due to GLEB from the GLC. This has encouraged banks to withdraw backing from some GLEB projects thus threatening some of the thousands of jobs created in 150 worker co-ops and other enterprises in the past three years.

The right wing seem to want to use this situation to dilute or abandon GLEB policies such as industrial democracy and investment intervention in support of trade unionists in enterprises which are not short term profit winners. They also originally attempted to cut back support for GLEB’s much praised Technology Networks, and its socially useful production projects, developed by former Lucas Aerospace shop steward, Mike Cooley, GLEB’s technology director but this has been met with very strong opposition.

The left argue that while the Tory government imposed crisis will mean that the scale of new investment in job creating enterprises by GLEB may have to be scaled down in the short run, a major campaign should be launched to raise support for GLEB. This should also aim to ensure that the promises of Labour leaders to provide cash for jobs in the inner cities are translated into binding commit-

ments and detailed strategies between now and the next general election.

Campaigning Unit

The right wing are hostile to any such campaigning and are closing down the campaigning unit in GLEB. The GLEB board also seems more concerned to cut back on financial backing for some key projects of crucial importance for the trade union movement in London in order to reassure borough treasurers and others that GLEB will become financially self-supporting in the future.

It may be too late to reverse the damage which has already been done, But the whole issue of GLEB’s future role in London and nationally should be raised in CLPs and trade unions and GLEB directors made effectively answerable for their actions to the wider movement. The planned redundancies should be halted, a campaign to raise new money for GLEB in the boroughs won from the Tories on May 8 begun immediately and the fullest debate initiated on a socialist strategy for GLEB in the months ahead

By “GLEB trade unionists”, writing anonymously because of the continuing dispute.

London Labour Briefing page 8

TOWER HAMLETS:

LABOUR DIDN'T LOSE!

JENNY FISHER for London Labour Briefing interviewed Christine Shawcroft, Leader of Tower Hamlets Labour Group.

JF: Are you unhappy at Labour’s loss of the Council?

CS: I’m unhappy that we didn’t win the Council, but Labour didn’t “‘lose’? the Council — it wasn’t Labour before!

The previous Council was independent. The majority of its councillors took no account of Labour Party policy — they were quite clear on that. They said they were the policy-making body, and we saw them expelling left councillors from the Group.

Now there are very few old Guard councillors left, and we have improved from 11 to 24 jalists on the Council. We didn’t win the Council, but we have won the Group: and winning the Council is our next priority.

Our other opponents worked the white racist vote for all it was worth in many areas (particularly in places like Blackwall, where a “housing ghettoisation” policy has reinforced racism) — while also working with SDP Bangladeshis. Despite the confusion caused by rumours going round, like that Labour opposed the Mosque, the fact that the Bangladeshi vote didn’t hold up completely shook our complacency.

JF: When will Labour resume office? CS: The Liberals were professional resigners in the last Council — and we already have one byelection! A good many of the Liberals elected in May were those not expected to win — they're not used to the rough and tumble of the Council, to having to be there each night, and I’m sure they'll start to fall by the wayside.

At first, I thought it might take us two years — but now, if Labour does the work in this byelection and whichever one is next, I’m sure it will be less.

JF: What were the issues in the election for Leader, where Sue Carlyle, who has also written for Briefing in the past, also stood?

CS: The healthy thing about the election was that there were two women standing.

I think a lot of people voted on the basis of our record — it must be said we disagreed on tactics over the budget last year, and I think some people voted according to what side they’d been on then. Also, we voted differently on this year’s budget, and people may have felt it would be better to have a Group leader who had voted for the budget strategy that was adopted.

But also, a leadership election doesn’t mean there’s a split in the Party — we have too much to do fighting the real enemy for that. And the vote was very close — 8 votes out of over 100 cast. But I’m not in favour of uncontested elections, so I think a contest was the best thing. JF: How has the Labour Group changed? And will they stick by socialist policies, or will there be pressure to make deals with the Alliance? CS: It’s not good that there’s only four women on the Labour Group. We stood more women, but we lost women in marginals like Lansbury and Limehouse. The ethnic mix is a bit better, but there’s still a lot to be done.

As for policy: the Labour Group isn’t a policymaking body — the basic question is will they do as they are told? I’m prepared to carryout a Party mandate, even if I disagree with it. It would have to be a very serious disagreement before I resigned, as I think resignation isn’t an easy matter, because you have to think about the

effects of throwing the Party into a by-election.

It’s difficult to tell about the whole Group just yet, because we're in a “honeymoon period”, where there’s nothing at stake, so it’s easy for everyone to hang together. When we take control, we might find half a dozen councillors become more dubious.

But still, even the old guard who are still with us were against the old leadership’s tactics of standing against us to let the Liberals in. These renegades went as far as to stand as “Tower Hamlets Labour Party” — which didn’t fool us, but the confusion factor threw many voters.

On compromising with the Alliance: we’re the opposition, and we must be seen as such. We must put forward the Party’s socialist policies, in particular, for our area, that we totally oppose privatisation, especially of housing. The old Guard used to fall for negotiations of the “3 Tower Blocks for a nursery” kind: which I totally oppose. Those days are over.

We must also make clear our opposition to the large scalé developments being proposed now: Canary Wharf and Spitalfields market, for example.

The Party will be deciding it’s response to the Liberals’ decentralisation policy next weekend. We'll have to chose between a boycott policy — which I think is rather a fudge — and using the “Jocal Town Halls’ as a political platform, which, in the areas where the Liberals are strong brings its own problems. We need to put the differences across clearly — when the Liberals say they’re giving ‘“‘power to the people” (which does, of course, sound like a good thing!) we must tell “the people”, that is, the trade unions and community groups, what will happen under this system, especially how the cuts will continue.

When we win our first by-election, there could be pressure to compromise with the lone SDP councillor, | suppose, to mitigate the Alliance line for a small advantage, which we should resist. But if we can keep the Party solid, this Labour Group will think twice before going against a Party mandate, I think. They will remember the ’85 budget — when two councillors, Thérése Shanahan and Chris Rackley, had to do a “GLC 10” and fight to bring the Labour Group back into line with Party policy against rent and rate rises and cuts.

I wasn’t elected to the Council till a by-election later that year — and I certainly remember being Party Secretary and fighting with Chris and Thérése to hold the councillors, and the LGC for that matter, to Party policy.

The question is, how much do people want power at all costs? It’s the Kinnock line: take the power and then work out what to do about it. People who do that forget about socialism all to quickly.

er)

Annual subscription £6

SUBSCRIPTIONS

Please send to Central Books Ltd., 14, Leathermarket, London SE1. (Cheques payable to “Central Books Ltd”).

LABOUR- TAKE THE POWER

WE WILL STAND FIRM!

Local Government Conference Saturday July Sth, 2pm Lambeth Town Hall (nearest tube Brixton) creche available

Fighting for Socialist Councils in London! Defending the Surcharged Councillors! How to resist Ratecapping!

A Financial Strategy for Victory! Uniting Across London!

Speakers include:

Linda Bellos, Lambeth Council Leader

Christine Shawcroft, Leader, Tower Hamlets Labour Group Graham Norwood, surcharged ex-Lambeth Councillor Narendra Makanji, Haringey Council

Jackie Abbott, Hammersmith Council

Frank Hansen, Brent Council Joan Twelves, Lambeth Council

Steve Cowan, ILEA

Jo Fawkes, Camden Joint Shop Stewards

Dave Benlow, Wandsworth NUPE

The Conference is open to all left wing Labour Councillors, representative from Local

Government Committees, and Labour Party members interested in organising the fightback in Local Government.

Registration Fee £1

Further details: Jane Prust, 51 Musgrove Road, SE14 Tel: 01-732 1872

Published by Labour Briefing, 162 Millfields Road, London E5. ' Wernham Printers Ltd [TU] Typeset by Bread N Roses [TU]