Labour Briefing no. 102

INSIDE:

v« Labour Party Socialists: special feature

ve 24 weeks: gain or loss?

vx Hungary election data

ve Poll Tax: in the unions

vx NUPE preview

OCAL ELECTION VICTORIE

DON’T LET TORIES OFF

Bradford voters took the first electore opportunity to put an end to Eric Pickles’ right-wing experiment and send a clear message to Thatcher.

The Tories lost five of the 13 seats they were defending and failed to regain any of the seats they lost in 1986.

If the previously safe Tory ward represented by Pickles and the two Lord Mayors whose casting votes gave him power had been at stake in this election, the city wide swing would have given it to Labour.

Labour gains included Odsal, the seat whose loss gave the Tories control in 1988.

Perhaps the most striking gain was Shipley West, a substantially middle class and traditionally Tory seat, which hasn't been represented by a Labour Councillor in 68 years.

Special Report from Bradford

By Paul Hubert Chair, Shipley West Labour Party

However, the signs for Labour are contradictory. In three wards the turnout was as high as 60%, boosting majorities in safe seats for both parties and giving Labour Shipley West despite an unusually high Tory vote.

This might suggest political polarisation in the area, but few posters were up and there was little sign of campaign fever. Tory posters were especially hard to find.

Traditional Tory voters were clearly unhappy with the government. Number takers at the local station told us “there’s no way we'll he!p out ina General Election.”

Even many Poll Tax gainers doubted whether the destruction of local services was worth it. Key local issues included the selling off of old people’s homes (along with their residents) and chaos in education.

Don Williams Photography

The threat of redundancy hangs over 100 local teachers because of Local Management of Schools and budget cuts. Up to 50 Further Education lecturers are also threatened,

Normally Conservative school governors and heads have been up in arms at the cuts they are supposed to make. The only official Tory response has been to tell them they are “confused”.

Continued inside, p.2

from the ground:

Elections

Briefing supporters report

x Birmingham

X Liverpool

x Calderdale

X Watford

X Tower Hamlets X Westminster X Haringey

xX Ealing

* Brent

Labour Briefing:

not only bringing you the news but making it!

LABOUR - TAKE THE POWER!

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 2

Letters

DON’T LET THE

TORIES

THE HOOK!

Continued from front page

Labour's fears of disaffection amongst Asians proved unfounded at least for the time being.

Mohammed Riaz, who defected to the Tories just ahead of deselection by his local Labour ward, promised to lead the “slaughter of

Labour”.

In fact, Amin Qureishi secured a Labour majority of over 3,000, only a few votes short of Riaz’s total in 1986. In another ward an “Islamic Independent” managed less than 9% of the vote while Labour secured an absolute majority.

But the Labour leadership can claim little

credit for the Tory defeat.

Its inertia during the 18 months of Tory control was symbolised by the refusal of the Labour leader, Phil Beeley, to give up a well-paid job in Wakefield Local Authority in sufficient time to qualify as a candidate.

Throughout the last year, he also failed to give a policy lead. The Manifesto was sent out less than a week before the elections.

Most damagingly, the Labour leadership had no real involvement in the local struggles against the cuts and the Poll Tax.

The new Labour regime now has to operate within the constraints of the Tory Poll Tax and budget, as well as the effects of existing cuts, especially in education and social services.

The Bradford labour movement will have to ensure that everyone knows what the Tory legacy is and that the existing Poll Tax framework means only minimal improvements

are possible.

If the Labour Group gets locked into power-playing and City Hall bureaucracy, the incompetence will let the Tories back in next year when the Poll Tax will rise with the removal of the safety net.

However, if they use City Hall as the basis for campaigning politics they can ensure that Bradford gives a hand in destroying both the Poll Tax and the Tory government.

danger is that thei

OFF

oil the

Greens!

Dear Briefing,

Labour's excellent result in the previously safe Tory seat of Quinton, Birmingham (see page 6) owed much to the local candidate’s non-payment stance on the Poll Tax.

Also attracting support were his opposition to the Council's “prestige” projects, and a long record of activity in defence of local jobs and services.

In the midst of our struggle against the Tories along came the so-called “community-based” Greens, whose candidate lives in a

large house outside the ward.

The Greens launched a concerted press attack on the Labour candidate running over several weeks.

This was despite the fact (well known to all the local Greens) that the Labour candidate had an excellent record on saving the local park and many other green issues.

This smear campaign helped elect a pro-Poll Tax, earth-despoiling Tory. The Green Party is not socialist and is certainly no friend of the working class.

Yours for socialism,

Pauline Purnell

Birmingham

Published by Labour Brlefing : PO Box 457, London SW2 5UZ

SERA: Correction SERA’s Vice-Chair, Mike Malina, has asked Labour Briefing to correct a point made in issue no. 100 in an article entitled SERA afSiliates to Labour!

Mike stated on behalf of Sera that SERA did contribute to the Policy Review and they also argued that the Labour Party should oppose nuclear

power. Briefing stands corrected on

this factual point and apologises for any confusion caused.

On the main point of the article that Larry Whitty wants SERA to provide Labour with a purely cosmetic green face we stand by every word.

SERA has been invited to make a contribution to the

debate so we look forward to

———-

Greens on the white side

Dear Briefing,

I was reminded of Steve Potter's passing disparagement of “demogogic” attacks on the Green Party in a recent “Briefing during our local election campaign.

Homsey and Wood Greenis a hard-fought battleground, one of the crucial Tory marginals which Labour must win to form a govemment after the next General Election.

The Green Party appears to have won just under 20% of the vote across the constituency on May 3rd, which, if repeated at a General Election, would certainly give the seat to the Tories.

It would be pleasant to think that this wasa left-wing protest vote against Labour or an endorsement of Poll Tax nonpayment. But the facts are otherwise.

Although ‘several local Greens have played a positive role in the anti-Poll Tax movement it hardly featured at all in their election campaign, though numerous attacks on the local Labour Council did.

Unfortunately these were not attacks on the right wing

plementing the Poll Tax and

Haringey Greens: no stand on anti-racism, despite Broadwater Farm community campaign in defence of the Tottenham Three.

threatening to prosecute nonpayers, for abandoning antiracist, anti-sexist, and lesbian and gay rights initiatives.

Instead, the Greens disparaged the local Council for its “mismanagement” and for being too “left wing”. As a result they were the beneficiaries of a middleclass, anti-Tory, anti-Labour, and generally grumpy protest vote.

In one leaflet they encouraged their voters to use their extra votes (only one Green candidate was standing in each of the multi-member wards) to support “any” of the major parties — including the Tories.

Any political party which fails at the very least to call for a vote against the Tories is reactionary and cannot be perceived as any kind of partner in the socialist project.

Finally, I was disturbed during our election campaign to find that several local white supremacists — fiercely antiLabour and anti-black — had Green posters up in their windows.

Of course, Labour's record on racism is atrocious. But the Greens are anew party andhad they taken a clear anti-racist stand (backing, for instance, the Tottenham Three) they would not now be attracting

Send snippets and Info to: Greg Bassett, Periscope Colum, Labour Briefing, PO Box 1235, London Né4 2!

Nothing to do with “Bedsit Trots”

To most punters the phrase “reading pad” may conjure up the image of a bed-sit somewhere west of London.

But to Labour activists the reading pad Is the lynchpin of electoral organisation.

Without It you simply can‘t convert your canvass returns Into useable information for knocking-up voters on election day.

But as May 3rd approached local Labour organisers In Camden began to worry: where were the reading pads?

A number of urgent phone calls to head office tumedup the same amazing story: none of our full-time officials

had bothered to arrange for any of the simple but precious Items to be printed.

When it dawned on the whizz-kids of Walworth Road that their omission was a serious one, last minute emergency arrangements were made to print the pads — on a Sunday in Merseyside.

Thus Labour's elections strategists managed to cost our Party a pretty penny In avoidable expense.

We can hardly blame Labour's London supremos for this minor eror.

After all, they were busy with other urgent items. — chucking out socialists, censoring local manifestoes, and waging one of the most insipid, negative, and ineffective Labour campaigns ever seen In the capital.

Trouble,citssit ‘ongress

House

Rumour has if that the normally somnolent cortidors of the TUC H@ at Congress House have been disturbed of late by murmurs of discontent from TUC employees.

Their grievance? The TUC tefuses to recognise any of their unions.

Instead, Willis and his “deputy” Monks Insist on dealing with their workers through a nonunion house staff committee, just like a good old-fashioned family firm.

Fraud (Squad) at Poll (Tax)

Not satisfied with having expelled 11 left Labour Councillors from the Haringey Labour Group one month before the local elections, the tight-wing Labour Council leadership has now set the fraud squad on five of the recidivist socialists.

The crime which the plainclothes hounds are Investigating Is the alleged fallure of the said Councillors to declare a personal pecuniary interest in a Council debate.

The debate in question concerned fines for non-tegistration for the

The alleged personal

pecuniary interest? The

five Councillors (all opposed in principle to

Poll Tax, Poll Tax

registration, and Poll

Tax payment) had

themselves not

registered for the Poll

Tax,

They therefore stood to gain (so the Labour fight and the Tories al lege) from any leniency on the Council’s part

towards nonregisterers. Ealing’s no comedy Workers in Ealing’s equalities and

members’ services units came into work on the Friday after the local elections with heavy hearts, knowing their Jobs were on the line,

Would they be sacked? Or redeployed? They didn‘thave to waitlong —newTory leader Martin Mallam told them to clear their desks by the next Tuesday.

Understandably, they turned to NALGO for help. But repeated phone calls met the same response: there's no one avaliable today, the executive are interviewing a new secretary...

At about 3.30pm, Chris

Morey, Branch Secretary, was eventually tracked down. Worrled members asked to meet him.

He would be conveninga meeting, he sald, some time next week. He’d let them all know.

Nice to see NALGO out there fighting for Its members.

Green Party campaign for Poll Tax

Payment

Haringey Green Party has found a novel way to fight the Poll Tax “without damaging services”:

“Groups of people with a wide range of Incomes band together to jointly pay their Poll Tax bills in proportion to their incomes”.

Each group appoints two administrators and each member tells them what her/his Income ls... The total bills for all the group are then added together and re-divided between the members.

With opposition like this, the Poll Tax will hardly last out the month! What happened to that vote for mass nonpayment at the Green Party Conference?

Margaret Hodge

Hodge Dodge?

Rumour has It that Islington Council boss Margaret Hodge was so keen to produce “her sort” of election Propaganda that she somehow forgot to check with the local Labour agent before issuing her own material — thereby breaking the law!

Can we expect Margaret to take the next logical step and pledge herself to non-payment of the Poll Tax?

ITV's election night speclal also featured Margaret Hodge. “It’s going well in Islington”, she said smugly. “A 13% swing to me.”

Labour Briofing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 3

Editorial

LABOUR — TAKE THE POWER!

Tories down — but not out

-general election approaches — may well prove more resilient than the polls indicate.

That means that Labour will win the next General Election by mobilising the maximum number of working class voters — which of course includes millions of relatively well-paid working class home owners who have increasingly come to hate Thatcher, her mortgage rates, and her Poll Tax.

Seventy per cent of the population is opposed to the Poll Tax, but Labour came nowhere near securing that level of the vote.

The campaign did not become the referendum on the Poll Tax which it should have been for several

You wouldn't know it from some of the headlines (‘Thatcher's Flagship Sails Home...”, “Poll Tax Vindicated...”) but Labour was the overwhelming victor in the local elections held on May 3rd.

The 8% swing to Labour across the country wot ' | be sufficient to elect a Labour government. In many areas — from Liverpool to Bradford to Lewisham to Great Yarmouth and Brighton — the Tories had their worst drubbing for many a year.

But the fact is this wasn’t quite the smashing victory we hoped for — and when share prices rise in the City following an election Labour should always be concemed.

Despite the fact that this was by any standards a

and only when she has sunk to unprecedented depths of mass unpopularity.

Thus the apolitical, Kinnock-orientated campaign (particularly marked in London) played to our weakness and to Tory strength.

Some Walworth Road spokespersons — and many on the left— have argued that it is better for Labour to keep Thatcher in office until the General Election.

While it is true that Heseltine would certainly put a few points on the Tories’ opinion poll ratings and that he easily beats Kinnock in any head-to-head competition, the overall effect of removing Thatcher

S by any reasons. uld be di ically benefici rotten result for Thatcher, she is still alive and Labour's mystery alternative to the Tax never pearl ee kicking — and dangerous. emerged. Labour Party members and supporters — indeed

The lesson of May 3rd — which we ignore at our peril — is that we cannot rely on the Tories losing the General Election; we have to win it ourselves.

The swing recorded in the local elections was wel! below the swing predicted in the opinion polls.

The losses of Brent and Ealing, the Tory

*The Labour leaderships at both national and local levels did everything possible to distance themselves from the grass-roots anti-Poll Tax movement.

eLabour failed fully to counter the Tories’ Poll Tax trap — the electoral arithmetic of which was clear in

workers of all types all over the country — would see in Thatcher's departure a victory for themselves and a defeat for their enemies.

It would boost our confidence and ultimately make success at the polls — and elsewhere — that much more likely. No wonder the Walworth Road gang are

Sepa in Se omelet, beg ie rye baled eae Wandsworth and Westminster. so cautious about removing Thatcher. and the Liberal’s surprising survival act enable A i it it -busti headline writers to exhume the Thatcherite corpse. Flagship He son Siniiy tautiog LaRour io unlon-busting,

environment-polluting, worker-exploiting industrialists in this country and overseas (and

pb aoe) he coe fre ee j Ses”) it is clear the last thing an incoming Labour administration will want is a combative and confident working class.

But what Labour leaders want and what is actually good for the Labour Party and its supporters are not necessarily the same things.

The whole mixed experience of the recent local elections — the swing against Thatcher and Labour's inability to make the most of that swing — confirms once again that socialists have no

In the search for scapegoats, some Labour MPs are trying to rey the “London factor”.

But if there is a London factor now (and given the strong Labour results in Lewisham and Islington and Lambeth, it is clearly a complicated combination of factors) it must be attributed to the right-wing London Council leaderships who cut jobs and services repeatedly in recent years and then set high Poll Taxes — and to the right-dominated (and grossly incompetent) Greater London Labour Party.

In , Labour's campaign was insipid and

When the Tories launched their flagship they aimed quite deliberately to use it to undermine Labour's electoral base in the inner-cities and bolster their own.

Why did Labour fail to get this basic fact across to larger sections of the electorate? Why didn’t we challenge this particular Tory “con” more effectively?

The answer is stark and simple. Labour does not want to be seen defending local government — and certainly not calling fo! eased resources to local ounce: ° as ~ Only amass c In of non-payment an and coupled to a Labour commitment to the , funding of local services, can foil the Tory Poll Tax

Our Party Political Broadcast was a naked appeal lo the middie class and the only thing more striking a p e.aliermatives to Tory failures

tha was its ineffectiveness. There is a solid Tory class base in this country

which held up welbin the local elections, con:

lering

the tremendous economic pressure it’s coming

under.

And the Tory vote — particularly as a crucial

of opinion polis over the Tastte

Labour Leader has always run well behind the

Labour Party in the popularity ratings. Kinnock has only recently overtaken Thatcher —

Labour and the racist resurgence

With the Tories on the defensive, the racists are coming out of the woodwork.

There has been a rise in fascist support in Western Europe (and some disturbing racist and nationalist developments in Eastern Europe).

This, and the Heseltine threat from the “left” of the Tory Party, and the debate about Hong Kong refugees, have all given Norman Tebbit and his extreme right crew the confidence and motivation to declare openly what they had been saying among themselves all along.

But the racist outbursts from the top of the Tory party are only the tip of the iceberg.

In Woolwich in South-East London three Black Labour Council candidates (all supporters of Labour Party Black Sections) suffered racial harassment during the course of the recent local election.

A smoke bomb was thrown into one house; some 50 racist messages were left on another's phone; and acarmistakenly thought to belong to a third was smashed up in front of his house.

By Martha Osamor Labour Party Black Sections

All three had been involved in the fight against the British National Party, which had set up an office in the area:

Meanwhile in Tower Hamlets in London's East End, the BNP held a public meeting at a local school as part of its election campaign, although anti-fascists in the area mobilised in opposition and got the better of the BNP on the day.

‘The BNP’s results in Tower Hamlets varied (they did get some 200 votes in one ward)

but with the notorious Tower Hamlets Liberals continuing to play the racist card, the BNP’s room for growth was limited.

The Liberal slogan was “Our Homes for Our People”. Their record of racist Council house evictions made them the clear pole of attraction for the large racist vote in the area.

This latest rise in the level of racist activity has several clear messages: the left must remain vigilant and ready to fight. But Labour as a whole must change course.

In recent months, when we should have been standing with our people against the Poll Tax, Labour has been busy trying to smash up the left and distance itself from Black people (and Black candidates) and from the anti-racist struggle in general.

Education Minister MacGregor’s announcement that white parents can choose to remove their children from

schools with a majority of Black pupils is only a logical development of the racist premises of the 1988 Education Reform Act.

The ERA was intended to bring back so-called traditional English education — with its emphasis on ruling class history and “christianity” — and to reverse the small steps forward taken by progressive educators.

Black

This had an obvious racist purpose. But even more threatening to Black people is the ERA’s fraudulent offer of “parental choice”.

‘The MacGregor decision shows just what kind of choice this means — and it is certainly not freedom of choice for

athe huge number of Black

children who often form only a tiny minority in whitedominated schools.

The MacGregor decision also re-enforces the fun-

Behind the headlines

Martha Osamor

damental point that Tebbit was making: Black people don't belong here.

On the streets, at work, in our homes, and our schools this message is hammered home again and again. At the same time, we are told we must prove ourselves. Our loyalty, our allegiance must be tested.

Labour's role in all this is profoundly worrying. Black people consistently vote Labour and Labour just ascon-

veqVeH 8S887 ;OLOHd

sistently ignores their needs and leaves then open to attack.

In the Hong Kong debate Labour could have done much better. It could have argued for democratic self-government for Hong Kong now as a real preparation for unity with the mainland and a concrete pressure on Deng’s bureaucracy.

Instead Labour played the Tory numbers game — and Tebbit was delighted.

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 4

Socialist Movement

How do you see the Movement?

In the run-up to its first AGM the Socialist Movement is discussing its internal democracy. Here COLIN LINDSAY,

National Secretary of the Soci

list

Movement, looks at the issues raised. —————_—_

“The Socialist Movement?” Bemused look.

“Oh, you mean the Socialist Conference!”

Many of us will befamiliar with such a reaction.

Despite our activities over the past year, the fact is that many people who are aware of and are sympathetic to the Chesterfield Conferences do not yet relate to us as a Movement.

To involve such people is, of course, a complex process.

An immediate step is the creation of clear democratic structures, which will maximise the participation of supporters in the work and decision-making processes of the Movement.

We should recognise that people have different levels of involvement and different fields of interest. Some may be satisfied with being kept informed of our activities, and perhaps attending a conference each year.

Some want to be more actively involved: in a local group, for example, or in one of our policy or worki

It is vital that we. develop structures that are more responsive to these differences

than in the past. The last thing we need is a massive and rigid

bureaucracy; what we need are flexible structures which present clear lines of communication and account-

jal campaign.

To illustrate the range and the variety of questions we have totackle, we need only to look at certain key areas of the Movement.

Local Socialist

Movements Local groups are vital to the development of our movement. We have had some preserving local groups, but with a few exceptions, these remain fairly precarious.

In many parts of Britain there are no operating Socialist Movements. Those that exist are represented on our Organising Committee, but twomonthly meetings do not provide ‘an adequate link between local groups and the rest of the Movement.

Local groups must retain the greatest autonomy. They need capacity to respond swiftly and sensitively to local issues and conditions and to build up positive relations with other local organisations and cam-

groups must have greater and clearer-opportunities of being involved in our policy and decision making. Communications between local groups and other parts of the Movement must be drastically improved.

We need to be clear about the kind of organisation we are trying to build at a local level.

Are we trying to create an

fect gives an organised focus to the socialist movement that exists in most towns and cities? This would involve individuals and organisations.

Orare we forming groups of individual socialists.

‘These are not necessarily altematives: we need to do the latter initially to achieve the former. But it is the former which, I believe, is our aim.

Policy Groups The role our Policy Groups has been critical in developthrough the papers for the ‘Some of them intend to turn in a more campaigning firecti

The need for the clarification of these groups relation to the Movement and the spelling out of clear lines of communication is urgent. All members must be able to participate actively in our policymaking processes.

Should policy work be or-,

ganised exclusively through national working groups or should people get together on issues of interest locally, with a national convenor to bring people together as appropriate?

What is our basic philosophy about policy

ably we reject the traditional Labour Party method of leadership’ appointed committees of the great, the good and the self-imPortant.

But how do we open up the Process, not only to our own members butalsotocampaigning movements and specialist groups not directly affiliated to the Socialist Movement but sympathetic to our aims?

How do you think we can

policy interests and expertise that we already have amongst our members and affiliates?

Related

organisations We have a range of different relationships to an increasing number of bodies, not all of which are clear.

First, there are our founding organisations: the i Group and the Socialist Society, who each have 4 representatives on our Organising Committee.

Could our relations with these founding organisations beimproved, making more use of their particular skills and positions? If so how?

Then there are the growing number of organisations which are affiliated to the Socialist Movement. Some have representatives on the Organising Committee, some do not.

What is the purpose of such affiliations for the organisation concemed and for the Movement? How can we make it an active relationship rather than just a formal one?

How can we ensure that the knowledge and experience of these bodies — for example the National Left in Wales —

are fully “brought into the:

movement?”

In another category are organisations that weshave’ created’as'part of our work in the labour movement: Labour Party Socialists and our Trade Union Committee.

In both these we are working with socialists who are not members of the Socialist Movement, ’

How do we create clear and flexible lines of communication, responsibility and accountability?

Women for Socialism is an

Tony Benn: founder of the Socialist Conferences.

relationship we establish with it is extremely important,

It is vital to get questions such as that of dual membership right to establish ways in which local WES groups can relate to our Socialist Movement groups.

‘What about other women’s organisations with which women in the Movement work? These include the European Socialist Feminist Forum. Women Against Fundamentalism, and many local womens’ projects. Or are these questions for WFS to resolve?

Annual General

Meeting At our last Annual C

members felt we should be establishing clearer ‘democratic structures.

The Organising Committee agreed to convene an Annual General Meeting with comprehensive policy-deciding and electoral powers soon after the November Socialist Conference.

‘This immediately raises a number of questions. How would we handle motions and amendments? How do we weigh the votes of national affiliates, local groups and af-

What kinds of election to the Organising Committee will ensure a balanced representation on it? These may seem boring administrative issues, but to establish democratic structures, we had better get them right.

Structuring political activity Questions about the organisation of an AGM have an obvious urgency. But we must not be stampeded into taking hasty and narrowly based decisions which turn out to be harmful or unworkable.

For the discussion-on ©

“developing clearer and more

democratic structures is not, in the end, simply a discussion on “neutral” administrative procedures.

It is fundamentally, a political discussion. The structures and processes we develop will necessarily both reflect the kind of politics we are trying to develop, and condition our capacity to develop such a politics.

If we are to move forward with decisiveness, we must make sure we have the necessary organisational bases. And these must be democratic from

ability. alliance of socialists that inef- build more effectively on the independent organisation. The _filiates, individual members? top to bottom. Economic Notebook

Kohli, the DM, and Europe

Chancellor Kohl has ditched previous election promises over DM/OM exchange.

He had pledged to give East Germans a straight one to one currency exchange.

This comes as» no ‘surprise and is the only logical road for the West German tuling class,

Independence

In fact it was the Bundesbank, the West German Central Bank, that has more in the way of independence from government than the Bank of England, that finally pushed Kohl to a two to one exchange.

The Bundesbank has always been aware of the

By MARTIN ALLEN

potential problems of German unification for the more long term strategic aim of German capital: the creation of a European economic “superstate” under German hegemony.

After the collapse of the post-war Bretton Woods system in which all world currencies were linked to the US dollar, European capital has fallen in behind the German economy and the increasingly powerful Deutschemark.

By the mid 70s the West German economy had overtaken the US in terms of the share of world manufacturing exports and had piled up

a national income well above any of its other European competitors.

West Germany also took a large slice of imports from various European economies.

Currencies

The establishment of the European Monetary System ensured that, through linking their currencies to the DM, member states prevented the inflationary effects of depreciating currencies.

The West Germans benefited in that import prices did not undercut their own domestic output. Membership of the EMS also limited the ability of member States to pursue radically different domestic policies.

The process of European integration is set to continue with the tightening of the exchange rate mechanism, the creation of a Central European Bank, and the eventual introduction of a common European currency.

The West German and the European bourgeoisie see this as an effective way of defending their interests against both US and Japanese imperialism.

Economy

If Kohl had gone down the one to one exchange rate road, the German economy could have been thrown into chaos.

As the growth rates of other Western European capitalist economies are

closely dependent on German growth, the aim of European integration could have been in danger.

German inflation rates would have risen steeply as a result of large increases in the money supply.

Unemployment would have risen from its present figure of about 100,000 to 2 million, as East German enterprises with productivity tates of about 30% of those in West Germany grappled with a hugely over valued currency and soaring wage costs.

The much talked about investment boom in East Germany would have fallen flat.

Money market interest rates would have gone up to defend the Mark, dragging other European rates, including those in Britain, with

them triggering recession.

So it was no accident that on the day after the announcement of a two to one exchange, that Kohl, in an extended interview in the Financial Times, reassured the rest of the Western European ruling class.

He promised that the 1992 proposals and monetary union were still very much on.

Thus extreme nationalist elements were headed off, for instance those around people such as Mrs Thatcher, who hoped to exploit uncertainties around German unification to put the break on European in-

. tegration.

It is the East German working class, who for the moment, will have to pay the’ price for this.

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 5

Flagsh

Last year our Annual Conference overwhelmingly passed a resolution demanding that, in theevent that a mass campaign of non-payment in Scotland becomes a reality, our Executive Council urge the Labour Party NEC immediately to convene a Special conference to initiate and lead a national camPaign of non-payment.

Thatcher 18 months ago described the Poll Tax as her flagship, the crowning achievement of capitalist revolution for Britain in the 0s.

Lead the campaign of direct action!

NUPE members across the country are joining local anti-Poll Tax groups in their communities and workplaces,

The many resolutions on the Conference agenda calling for mass non-payment and demanding that Local

By Sally Morawetz Chair, : Nottinghain City NUPE

(personal capacity)

Examples from jusi health service membership show very clearly:

+100 student nurses at the Florence Nightingale Nurses Home of Edinburgh’s Royal Infirmary are fighting back against the summary warrants out against them.

‘The Flo’ Home Against the Poll Tax Campaign has co-ordinated the closing of their bank accounts — no handbag snatchers here, thanks Maggie!

Campaign

The campaign is threatening to mount a picket and refuse to let anyone into the home who tries to sell off their possessions to recover the £398 Lothian Council is demanding from them!

+Across-London committee’ has been set up to organise student nurses throughout the capital (details from the Charing Cross NUPE office on 081846-1234).

Student nurses on traditional courses “earn” £85 and “must” pay 100% Poll Tax, whilst those on Project 2000 get £88 and “must” pay (only) 20%.

But, after only one year of its implementation in Scotland, the Poll Tax is in utter and complete chaos, and now has all the hallmarks of becoming her Titanic.

‘Who would have thought in April 1989 that one year hence more than a million people,

(rom our tiny population of ,

five million, 3.7 million of whom are eligible to pay), have either refused to pay a single penny or are now in serious arrears of their Poll Tax?

Even the Glasgow Evening Times was forced to concede that “an estimated 650,000 have not paid at all and another

Some student nurses at Kings College Hospital living in the grotty home in Lambeth are expected to shell out an extra £150 more than colleagues living in thenew, nicer

+Even the nursing establishment knows they can’t afford to ignore the strength of feel-

of radical lefties!) has quoted a letter to COHSE from the UKCC’s Assistant Registrar (for professional conduct). This states the excellent news that non-payers who are subsequently fined are “extremely unlikely to be the subject of a hearing before the Professional Conduct Committee”.

Tom Sawyer and his New Realist supporters will try to argue that we need to concentrate on getting a Labour government elected and not get involved in the mass campaign:

Anyone with any sense, however, knows that the Tories are crumbling precisely because of the mass opposition to this latest attack on working people.

The Tories are not worried about General Election campaigns against a more popular Labour Party in a couple of years.

NUPE ought to be leading the campaign on non-payment non-implementation and non - collection,

We should be using our ties to demand a Labour Party committed to struggle for the interests of the working class now — and not compromises on the never, never!

Delegates should support the calls for action on the Conference floor on non-collection, no-implementation and come to the Sunday night Broad Left fringe meeting on the Poll Tax.

We must ensure that we use Conference to strengthen our mass action against this hated Tax together with other unions

ip or

500,000 have paid only two instalments”.

We are entering the 1990's inthe midst of the biggest campaign of civil disobedience in Britain’s history.

__

By Jim Blair and Rab Chalmers Strathclyde Brigade Committee

—$$$

But, with breathtaking hypocrisy, we see Thatcherbeside herself with glee over the wave of civil disobedience sweeping Europe, while at home she is up to her neck in her own particular brand of “refuseniks”.

It is worth mentioning, in Passing, that many of the strikes and supportive action taken by workers in Europe and applauded by Thatcher would be against the law here in Britain.

In Scotland literally hundreds of Anti-Tax Unions have sprung up composed of ordinary men and women, the vast majority of whom are unemployed or on low wages.

They have no links with the trade union movement or the Labour Party, and have amalgamated under the umbrella of the Scottish Anti-Poll Tax Federation, ow, the bastion of the non-payment campaign, currently has a figure of one in three of the population not paying; whilst Strathclyde Regi in four refus-

Poll Tax capping has thrown a large spanner into the

The decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment to cap 21 Authorities is the start of a potentially long process.

By Doug Thorpe Islington NALGO

Designated Authorities have 28 days to appeal. The Secretary of State must then consider the appeal and fix a maximum, which is laid as an Order before Parliament. The Authority must comply within 21 days.

This procedure means that new bills will not be dispatched until July at the earliest.

The arbitrary nature of the criteria used to set the capping (12.5% + £26 above the Standard Spending Assessment) has done the government immediate political damage.

It has been seen as biased against Labour Authoritiesand their arguments about account-

and community groups.

ability to the electorate have

Titanic?

Easterhouse, Pollok, Drumchapel and Castlemilk have become virtual no-go areas as far as collection is concemed where literally entire streets have still to pay a single penny!

But the Mass Non-Payment Campaign is not confined to the industrial heartland of Scotland.

Anti-Poll Tax Unions have been founded in such diverse places as Gretna-Green on the English border and Lerwick in the Shetland Isles which is nearer Norway than it is to Glasgow.

In January, Strathclyde Regional Council issued 350,000 notices of warrant sales to non-payers.

They, and the Sheriff Officers, are desperately hoping that people will be frightened into paying at this stage. But the authorities are orchestrating a gigantic bluff.

According to Kenneth Simpson, spokesperson for the Society of Messengers at Arms and Sheriff Officers:

“sending our letters to thousands of individuals is not a problem. Having physically to carry out poindings, however, is another matter.”

(Scotsman)

We appeal to our FBU brothers and sisters in England and Wales to join their local Anti-Poll Tax Union or found

start our movements from scratch. We have leamt the lessons, and yes we have made mistakes.

been destroyed.

However, the government believes it will eventually buy support from those opposed to the level of the Poll Tax and capping is the only mechanism for ensuring that extra money given to local government is used to lower the Poll Tax not to provide services.

A number of capped Authorities, led by Hammersmith and Fulham, have sought a judicial review of the general criteria used to cap. Others may appeal against their individual limits.

The wide powers given in the legislation to the Secretary of State mean neither of these judicial options are likely to be successful.

Capitulation

It is the capitulation of Councils to the Poll Tax and their decision to make the cuts the government demands that is the biggest comfort to the Tories in these trying times.

‘The cuts will take place in at least 3 phases:

scuts made by Councils to keep this year’s Poll Tax down and try to avoid capping;

scuts caused by the capping itself;

*cuts made in a desperate at-

+ ing class movement which alone has emerged as the only organisation capable of taking this fight to a successful conclusion.

We now have more than one million non-payers. Many more will become non-payers when they see the increases for 1990/91.

If these figures of mass nonpayment were reflected in England and Wales, the Tories would be upagainst an army of 10 million non-payers south of

Fields

In the words of Terry Fields, MP for Broadgreen Liverpool and ex-FBU Executive Council Member:

“When the judge finds me guilty of not paying the Poll

ee me what J have to say sentence Takis pease tae Lester Pig

“He done the Tax-Payer out of millions of pounds and only gota yearin prison, in that case

tempt to avoid being capped next year.

Avon Council, for instance, is considering going beyond this year’s £20m cut to up to £50m cuts in order to avoid capping in future. Other Councils will follow.

Nevertheless, underinstruction from Kinnock and Gould, Labour Councillors are playing down the effects of the cap. Those Councillors who have shown themselves willing to fight the Poll Tax must raise their voices.

In the trade unions capping has fuelled campaigns against cuts and redundancies. The magnificent decision of NUT Conference in favour of national strike action against redundancies shows the way forward.

In NALGO a meeting of capped and cut Authorities decided to step up the union’s campaign against cuts, and the fight is now onto win a national campaign for boycotts of the Poll Tax work and defence of services at this year’s Conference;

It is important not to separate the capped Authorities from those where cuts were made to avoid capping or from the campaign

and a half hours for not paying my Poll Tax.”

An Evening Times editorial of 2/11/89 commented on the issuing of 236,415 final notices: “The big question is this: How do you take almost a quarter of a million defaultersto court? It simply isn’t possible.”

By October or November this year the Poll Tax system in Britain will be teetering on the verge of virtual collapse.

FBU members have been Proud and honoured to play an Fight from its very inception. We now ask for your s in defeating this evil and unjust tax. Remember the resolution

Passed at Conference last year!

Non-Payment is now a reality. ——$—____

from Firefighter, =

journal of the Fire

Brigades Unica. which

aoted beside the article that it doesn’t represent FBU policy).

against the Poll Tax as.a whole.

‘We must not fall into the trap of appearing to call for higher Poll Tax levels. The demands of nocuts and no Poll Tax need to be won both in the Poll Tax groups and in the unions.

Community

Unions and community campaigns must be linked in joint anti-Poll Tax/anti-cuts committees.

It is also urgent that unionists in different local government and education unions work together,

Basildon NALGO’s call for a meeting of all branches of any union affected by capping should be supported, as should the call for a national Trade Union Conference against the Poll Tax made by the Socialist Movement.

Movement

The powerful movement against the Poll Tax has made the government desperate to bring down Poll Tax levels. Non-payment and trade union action together ¢an prevent this being translated into cuts and bring down the Poll Tax completely.

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 6

Labour Party: Local Elections

Voters dump “Trad Labs”

In Watford, the Labour, Party has regained overall control with 20 of the 36 Seats.

This brings to an end two years of minority Labour administration.

‘That began when ninemembers: of the then 23-strong majority group resigned the Labour whip and formed their own “Traditional Labour Group”.

By a Watford Briefing supporter

The immediate excuse for the split was a dispute about a new shopping complex in which one of the developers had South African links.

Other divisions within the Labour Group included the emphasis to be placed on the Council’s Nuclear Free Zone policy; whether to grant Mandela the freedom of the Borough; and the relationship between the Group and the local Party.

Some of the breakaway Councillors had previously been strongly criticised by the GC formaking sexist and homphobic statements to the local press.

Anti-apartheid: not a priority for Trad Labs.

By the time of the split all nine were effectively ignoring the Party and they were eventually expelled from the Party for forming the “Traditional Group” and opposing official Labour candidates in Council Elections.

Now only two of the socalled “Traditional Labour” Councillors remain.

Lady Porter rises from

Labour was shocked by the scale of the defeat in Westminster.

Twelve seats were lost to the Tories, including the seats contested by the Labour Group Leader and Deputy Leader.

A7% swing to the Tories ona high turnout gave them a majority of 30 seats and brought Labour back to the position before 1986, when we came within 300 votes of taking the Council.

The Tories fought the election on their £195 Poll Tax, the second lowest charge in London.

y Padraic Finn

To back this up, the government focussed its publicity (and funding) on Westminster in an attempt to show that it was the size of the Poll Tax — rather than its principle — that people objected to.

Tory voters turned out in droves, joined by SLD voters. In at least one ward the SLD vote went over wholesale to the Tories.

Labour had had real grounds for optimism.

Aside from the 20% lead inthe national opinion polls, Lady Porter's Council had

grave

been shaken by a series of splits, resignations, and scandals.

The best known of these was the selling of three cemeteries to property developers for 15p.

Tories hoped to counter these disadvantages through their policy of building “stable communities” — ie., ing out working class tenants and replacing them with wealthy owneroceupiers.

This was __ largely achieved through a combination of Council house sales, deporting the homeless into B&B accommodation in other Boroughs, and the escalating price of housing in central London.

The decisive factor, however, was the Poll Tax. The massive fiddle of Westminster's grant from central government ensured a low Poll Tax.

Labour's weakness was its lack of an alternative. There was no serious campaign against the Poll Tax in the Borough and therefore a vote for Labour was seen as a vote for a higher Pall Tax.

Bland appeals to Labour's “values” and reliance on “pale blue” politics let the Tories escape the drubbing which was coming to them.

Labour emerged from a confusing set of local election results with a 42-17 majority on Haringey Council.

This is identical to its overall result four years ago, but disguises a number of interesting developments, both positive and negative.

In 1986 Labour defied a concerted national and local hate campaign to increase its majority under the banner of a radical and widely publicised manifesto.

Since then, three seats were lost to the Tories in by-elections, the manifesto was junked, and nine left Labour Councillors, were expelled from the Labour Group.

Toby Harris’ LCCdominated administration had waged a ruthless war on the left within the Party, cut services again and again, and sct

HARINGEY

Thumbs down .or New Realis

the highest Poll Tax in the country.

Four years ago it rained on election day — but we still had a high tum-out, thanks to hard work by Party members and the high profile given to the local contest by a“Bernie-baiting” media.

On May 3rd 1990, the sun shone all day — but the tumout was down, especially in Tottenham.

By Mike Marqusee Hornsey & Wood Green CLP

Nonetheless, the. result in Tottenham (the easter and more working-class part of the Borough) was a strong one for Labour.

The Tories lost all but one of

the five seats they held; the Liberals lost their only seat; and most Labour majo: were up.

The two best personal results in the Borough went to left-wingers Roger Harris and Ron Blanchard. The LCC had done its best to kick the latter off the panel — going as far as to send lies about his Council voting record to the NEC.

In Homsey & Wood Green (the western half of the Borough and one of the most marginal Tory seats in the country) the news was not so encouraging.

Council Leader Toby Harris scraped in by 80 votes; Labour lost three seats to the Tories; and there was an overall swing from Labour to Tory of just over 1%.

In the strongly Labour South Homsey ward, Deputy Council leader Philip Jones received a sharp slap on the

ies

EALING

wrist from his Labour-voting electorate (mostly Council tenants).

Jones was over 200 votes behind his running-mate Williamson, thus reversing the usual alphabetical hierarchy.

Inthe Wood Green area, extreme right-wing Tories won marginal seats that would have gone to Labourif the left-wing activists in their wards had been given a decent choice of candidates and any real encouragement to participate in the campaign.

The campaign slogan, “Haringey’s a good place to live”, summed up its forkedtongue insipidity.

On this showing, Labour will fail to win the crucial Horsey & Wood Green marginal. LCC Parliamentary hopeful Barbara Roache will need the full co-operation ofan alienated left if she wants to take the seat from the Tories.

Council tenar’ s turn to

Labour’s loss of Ealing Council was a shock to everyone, including the ‘Tories.

At the start of the count, Tory Leader Martin Mallam privately conceded defeat, and admitted they were “worried” about some of their safe seats.

Labour was fighting on a good manifesto, although it contained no concessions at all to those unable to pay the £443 Poll Tax.

By Peter Chowney Hackney South CLP

Close examination of the results reveals that the middle class areas, first won in 1986, remained Labour. But the traditional Labour-voting Council estates of Northolt and Greenford went Tory.

Reasons for this are difficult

to pin down. Identical Council estates in neighbouring Hounslow remained Labour. There had been no serious local scandals, and the local press had been broadly supportive of the Council.

Itcould be due to resentment amongst Council tenants of Ealing’s generous homelessness policy or to racism and anti-gay hysteria stirred up by local Tory MP Harry Greenway.

The result puts in power a Tory group made up mostly of

Tories

“paper” candidates.

Having declared himself as a “Heathite”, Martin Mallam wasted no time in showing his true colours. He has told over a hundred Town Hall staff (mostly women and black workers) to clear their desks. Big disputes are inevitable.

Ih spite of its cuts and unashamed implementation of the Poll Tax, the loss of Ealing is a tragedy for all sections of the Party. More analysis is needed.

A self-inflicted wound

The Council election results in Brent were part of Kinnock’s nightmare — but a predictable one.

Labour went into the elections on 46 (up on the 1986 result through by-election gains), with the Tories on 22, and Liberal Democrats on four.

We now have a hung Council with the Tories holding 31, Labour 29; and SLD six.

The Tories are saying it is due to a Labour Poll Tax of £498.

Both Walworth Road and the local Labour leadership claim that the policies of the Labour Group were fine, but they hadn’t yet managed to put the record of the previous Labour administration behind

By Pete Firmin Brent East CLP ae

them.

Neither explanation holds water. Other London Labour Councils (Lambeth, Haringey) set much higher Poll Taxes, and had more radical policies, yet suffered no losses (even making gains in Haringey).

The “previous administration” theorists claim that Labour was “loony left” until saved in the last few years.

But Brent Labour Group was never even particularly radical! It didn’t even set up a single lesbian and gay centre!

When the Leader of Brent Council said he would not

allow Section 28 to alter Brent's policies, he was quite right — there were none to be altered.

The nearest Brent came to radicalism was in a certain expansion of services and its bureaucratic equal opportunities policies — which never met the needs of people in the eighth most deprived Borough and which it never organised to defend (remember McGoldrick?).

The biggest single factor in Labour's defeat was its devastating cuts (far bigger than Bradford's) and rent increases over the last three years.

This left the unions demorilised and many workingclass voters disillusioned in areas where services had be-

come virtually non- existent.

This demoralisation shows up again in the anti-Poll Tax campaign, which has meetings significantly smaller than elsewhere in London.

The irony is that the New Realists’ strategy has under. mined what is-supposed to be the benefit of New Realism: electoral support!

The right will probably try toblame the left’ s lack of effort in the election campaign for the defeat. But the campaign was run almost exclusively on the right’s polic their manifesto, with their candidates.

‘The immediate task is to try and stop the new Labour Group forming a pact with the Liberals (tacit or otherwise).

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 7

It was most annoying that the SLD victory in Tower Hamlets appeared on the television as a “gain”.

The Liberal Focus team had won 25 seats in 1986, and with the support of one SDP member outvoted Labour’s 24 members to take over the Council.

Labour did win a by-election off the Liberal Focus Team, who by then were all Democrats and later became Liberal Democrats.

(No wonder some of the leaflets putting forward Labour's policies this time round ended “vote for the party with an identity, not an identity crisis.”)

But the Mayor’s casting vote has kept the Liberal Focus Team in power in the “hung” Council throughout the last four years; and the “new” Council (LFT 30, Labour 20) will mean no change for the people of Tower Hamlets.

It was disaster enough when LFT won in 1986, wresting control of a Borough incorporating the old London Borough of Poplar where George Lansbury had led the stand for equalisation of the rates in the 20s.

But Lansbury’s tradition had long since disappeared. The 1982-6 Labour administration under Paul Beasley had been one of the rottenest, most complacent, right

wing types.

In fact, the 1986-90 LFT administration strived to outdo even Beasley. Their ally was big business; their scapegoats for all that went wrong were black people.

Tower Hamlets was divided into seven “Neighbourhoods”. The Councillors in each Neighbourhood comprised the Neighbourhood Committee and were to.run their own area,

Skeleton statutory Council Committees were maintained, as was a Policy and Resources Committee so tiny meetings were often two Liberals in a Town Hall broomcupboard at 8am— very difficult to lobby!

By Jenny Fisher Bow & Poplar CLP

Labour Neighbourhoods were subject to budgets set by the Liberals; and it was difficult to explain who was responsible for what.

Liberal Neighbourhoods received more generous budget allocations.

WhereverLabourattempted a popular socialist initiative or attempted to organise community defence against developers, the matter was declared a “Borough-wide issue”, taken out of the Labour Neighbourhood’s hands, and

Liverpool

Now organise the movement!

The massive 11 seat gain for Labour has given them a 67-32 majority on the Council.

“Pavement politics” Liberals have received yet another blow from the electorate. *

The Labour Group is now firmly split between the Poll Tax non-payers and the Coombes softi/left/right wing alliance — which will have to rely on the Liberals for support.

Coombes and the proPoll Taxers will have but one choice: to revoke the whip from the 30, combined with moves to expel them from the Party, if attempts by Kinnock’s NEC and the regional bureaucracy fail to secure a climbdown from

By Philip Atherton

the weaker elements.

Ultimately, the nonpayers, part of the Liverpool Broad Left, can only defeat Kinnock and Coombes by organising the Council workers and the thousands of non-payers.in the community.

But Militant supporters, fearful both of expulsions and their inability to contain the militancy of local campaigns, have put the antiPoll Tax movement on hold.

This must change! The non-paying Councillors and the whole of the campaigning left must organise the movement now!

Calderdale

In Calderdale (which includes Halifax and

of the Council.

Hebden Bridge) Labour won two seats from the Liberal Democrats and now have overail control

Labour increased its majorities all around and came within 18 votes of capturing a notorious Tory stronghold.

the Poll Tax).

Calderdale was a Poll Tax-capped Council. Last month Halifax witnessed its largest ever demonstration (against

If the May 3rd vote is repeated in a general election Labour will take the Calder Valley parliamentary

constituency from the Tories. Calderdale Briefing supporters

Tower Hamlets “Liberal Democrats” play the racist card

decided by the Liberals’ policy triumvirate!

Nonetheless, Labour’ s position in the Neighbourhoods certainly helped protect some communities from the worst Liberal devastation.

Finally, the extra bureaucracy caused by the replication inherent in decentralisation has cost masses. £20 million has gone on building seven new Town Halls forthe seven new Neighbouthoods alone!

Why couldn't Labour take Tower Hamlets back?

‘The Party was enormously

demoralised by the sudden blow of losing in 1986. Activism plummeted, and membership slumped below 400 at the low point. Some Labour Councillors disappeared to run little fiefdoms in the Neighbourhoods; others drifted into lethargy, as all they could do was suffer perpetual opposition within Liberal Neighbourhoods.

‘The Group couldn't discuss common initiatives: all the Neighbourhoods were doing their own thing at their own pace, Where some Councillors wanted to discuss in Group the tunning of their Neighbourhoods, they were faced with many Group members who had no experience of the position they were in.

Liberals controlling the purse strings meant that many

May 3rd saw the election of Labour Briefing’s first Birmingham City councillor.

Guy Daly in Bourneville, committed to Poll Tax nonpayment, turned a Tory seat into a 789-vote Labour majority.

Birmingham Briefing almost scored a second success when John Wilton in Quinton slashed a Tory majority of 1,204 to a mere 47.

By Birmingham Labour Briefing

Wilton, standing on a Poll Tax non-payment platform, was probably denied victory by the disinformation campaign against him by the local Greens and by the equivocation of Council Leader Dick Knowles on several important manifesto commitments.

It was well known that Knowles did not support such popular commitments as “No more Olympic bids” and “No more funding for the Super

Wavering voters were often won over on the doorstep when it was pointed out to them that the best way to upset Knowles was electing John Wilton tothe Council.

Besides Knowles, undoubted electoral liabilities included Kinnock, foreign junkets by Birmingham City Councillors, and so-called

voters in Labour Neighbourhoods grew discontent as their housing situation worsened: whereas all could see the improvements taking place in Liberal Neighbourhoods. Some of these occurred at the expense of selling off estates to developers, some improvements grew out of deals with the Urban Development

Corporation But the Liberals blamed all the problems on the

Bangladeshis. Labour never nailed that lie. The number of racist attacks grew.

The Liberals cast the Labour Group as “loony lefties”; and although three out of four Labour Neighbourhoods were busy holding up the dented shield, the mud stuck.

* The Greater London Labour Party assisted in this carica- : insisting that the Borough Party’s policy of non-prosecution of Poll Tax non-payers and trying (only trying!) not to increase rents under new legisJation be removed from the manifesto.

Nordid it help when aGLLP official commented to the local Paper that the Labour Group Leader was a “silly berk”,

providing a wonderful headline two weeks from polling day.

The Liberals did not stand in every ward this year. They ignored Labour safe seats; stood in their own safe seats; and tar-

Birm

Labour Party: Local Elections

geted sufficient marginals in each ward to win control of six of the seven Neighbourhoods.

Their piece de resistance was to issue an eve of poll leaflet headlined “Labour News” (bilingually, for authenticity!) with a tiny Liberal “p&p” in marginal wards, one of which was lost by nine votes,

In the bogus leaflet, “Labour” pledged to issue an amnesty for squatters, double the rents, and use empty flats to house Bangladeshi homeless families.

It is now the subject of legal action by the local Party.

Only in one ward did the Liberal plot fail. In Millwall ward on the Isle of Dogs, targeted by the Liberals, an excellent socialist campaign was fought which deprived the Liberals of their Chair of Education designate and Chief Mediator with the LDDC.

The right wing ward officers who two months previously had issued a paper appealing forthe “Trots” to be thrown out of the Party washed their hands of the election, leaving it to the left to ensure that an effective campaign was mounted.

Party members rallied round and ensured that the viciously racist Liberal campaign, on the slogan “Island homes for Island people” (i.e. kick the Bengalis out and house white people) was beaten.

ngham

Dick Knowles: before the nightmare

prestige projects such asthe Intemational Convention Centre (interest charges for which added £17 per head to the Poll Tax).

The biggest vote loser for Labour, though, was the failure of the Labour leadership to support the Poll Tax non-payment campaign and to produce

a credible alternative to the Poll Tax.

Guy Daly’sclear support for Poll Tax non-payment enabled him to overcome a predictable but vicious Tory smear campaign.

One Tory leaflet accused him of the outrageous crime of supporting “public ownership

‘The Liberals now have control of five of the seven Neighbourhoods, but the left made sure they didn’t get their hands on prize of the Isle of Dogs.

The promise of years more Liberal Focus rule is catastrophe for the working class of Tower Hamlets, but already the hard left in the Borough is making plans to lead Labour's campaigning fightback “ even if the Greater London Labour Party get in the way.

Kinnockite policies did get a tochold in one ward, where the candidates issued a rose-bestrewn election address reassuring the electorate that the candidates were heterosexual, fecund, and kind to animals (in that order),

Militant supporting Party members have been ordered not to attend Anti-Poll Tax Unionmeetings in that ward by the GC’s chief Kinnockite, who has threatened to see to it personally that they are expelled if they show their faces in his manor.

That campaign saw 75 votes knocked off Labour's combined total in 1986.

Millwall ward members, who have earned themselves the label of the “Millwall supporters” for their tenacious pursuit of socialist policies on the GC and LGC, look forward tothe local Party's discussions ‘on the way to win elections.

and workers’ control” and taking part in “demonstrations, burning, and mass civil disobedience"!

There is no truth in the rumour that we are looking for a few Tories to barbecue in hot weather!

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 8

Labour Party Socialists Special Feature

Local elections 1990

Mixed verdict

on Poll Tax buy-off

The Labour Party leadership were keen to make the local elections a political test for Thatcher.

This worked up to a point, but there seem to have been other factors at play.

With many high turnouts recorded, the electorate finally seems to be taking local government seriously.

Overall, the results were

encouraging for Labour — 300 net gains, securing

2,800 of the 5,000 seats on offer.

There were three categories of Local

Authority involved, each of them affected by different local factors, and each of

them producing different.

results.

SLD

The Tories suffered worst, with the SLD (which stood 1,000 fewer candidates than in 1986) maintaining idiosyncratic islands and providing a comfortable home for disillusioned Tories.

SRSlGy alerted owing to Labour of around 1% — but Labour support here is already overwhelming.

There seems to have been a small shift from Labour to SNP, with the Tories desperately clinging toasmall core of supporters in the smart city suburbs of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and Sterling.

English The SLD performed par-

* ticularly badly here too.

In the English Districts, Labour gained 10 councils out of 152 —in spite of only a third of the seats in each of these councils being on offer.

The swing to Labour was best in the South at 15%, but even in the North, where supportis already very high, 11% was achieved.

Labour gained seats in virtually every Council, with areas like Hastings and Portsmouth in the deep Tory south showing well.

Best of all, Thatcher's favourite Bradford fell to Labour. And in Liverpool, Labour gave the Liberals yet another drubbing.

Liberal Democrats elsewhere were jubilant at their smaller than expected losses, and the Greens received a respectable

By PETER CHOWNEY

share of the vote where they stood, though they won only three seats.

But most enigmatic were the London results.

An overall swing to Labour of only 1% was recorded, with Tories making big gains in Westminster, Wandsworth, Brent, Hammersmith, Ealing, Hillingdon, and Harrow.

But some facts are hidden here. Press desperation to keep Wandsworth and Westminster Tory was aided by a government-fiddied Poll Tax in both Boroughs.

The Tories bought voters with an effective cash handout of £117 a head.

Overall in London, both Labour and Tories made gains. Labour won one Borough from the Tories (Merton), but lost Ealing.

Brent (previously papain) ended up hung, with the Tories losing overall control in Kingston and Havering, but gaining Hillingdon (from no overall control).

Kingston

The Liberal Democrats did‘ rather well, increasing majorities in their three London Boroughs, including Labour targets like Tower Hamlets, and winning Kingston.

The London Evening Standard somehow interpreted this as “Kinnock Wakes to new Blue Dawn”,

Press attention on Wandsworth and Westminster as Tory “flagships” somehow misses out Merton, another borough which pioneered privatisation, service cuts, and Thatcherite philosophy, but did not get an artificially deflated Poll Tax.

Merton

The only reason Merton has never been considered a flagship Borough is because no one knows where itis.

Worst of all, Londoners now have to put up with dreadful pictures of Westminster Leader Lady Porter on the front page of the Standard every day for the next four years.

But the most puzzling resultin the whole country is that of Ealing.

A reasonably efficient Labour Council which had suffered no scandals, set an average London Poll Tax, and had good PR, surprised everyone by turning overwhelmingly Tory.

Nonetheless, the picture is favourable to Labour,

whatever the papers might’

say.

Labour was building on a high 1986 base, especially in London, where the demise of the GLC caused a big pro-Labour reaction.

‘The biggest danger for the left now is that Kinnock may demand further purges, claiming that the poor London result was caused by vestiges of “loony left” Council policies.

Radical

What must be remembered is that the 1986 landslide was achieved on radical manifestos right across London — manifestos which were later abandoned.

Nor can high Poll Tax bills be used as an excuse. The two highest Poll Tax boroughs, Lambeth and Haringey, both showed overall swings to Labour; whereas Bradford, with a low Poll Tax, also swung to Labour.

But'since no Labour Councils anywhere adopted anything resembling a radical platform this time round, it's difficult to make comparisons.

There is some evidence to suggest that right wing administrations lost support, but the picture is complex.

Perhaps the most disturbing message is that the Tories are capable of buying support through low Poll Taxes.

If they were to extend their policy in Westminster and Wandsworth to other key Councils, especially in London, Labour could find itself in deep trouble.

For Labour to make a further breakthrough in local government and give local Party activists the strength to re-introduce good radical manifestos the Poll Tax has got to go.

Waiting for the next Labour government to dream up an alternative which doesn’t upset the city is just not good enough.

The campaign against the Poll Tax, the need to make it fail through mass non-payment and huge popular protest, is now greater than ever.

PHOTO: Leesa Herbert

The Labour left is in a terrible state.

Therealignments since the Miners’ Strike have left us with the Kinnockite new model party of witch-hunts, policy reviews and the threat of a weakened trade union link.

At a national level we have only two votes on the NEC and at a local level not one local Council could be delivered in opposition to the Poll Tax!

The situation outside the Party is much livelier, with trade union disputes gaining massive public support and’ hundreds of thousands supporting the non-payment campaign against the Poll Tax.

The Tory Party itself is in. crisis with Thatcher’s leadership facing challenges from both left and right. This time it is in serious trouble as the economic basis for past Tory success begins to crumble.

To those outside the Labour Party in the Anti-Poll Tax Unions the Party is little more

than a bureaucratic monolith. At best Labour fails to lead

any fight against the Tories, at worst it acts as the Tories’ second eleven, calling for “exemplary sentences” for those arrested in Trafalgar Square. Faced with such difficult circumstances left activists are haemorraging from the Party. Even Vladimir Derer was forced to note in a letter to his Executive members that Cam-

paign for Labour Democracy

Labour Party

Tony Benn, building the Socialist Movement [left]; John Tuite, recently elected Lambeth Councillor,

Stay and fig Labour Part

Labour Briefing is enthusiastically supporting the first conference of Labour Party Socialists to be held in Sheffield on May 19th-20th. BRYN GRIFFITHS of Tottenham CLP takes a wider look at why the building of a left organisation in the Labour Party is crucial. —————_—_

members are abandoning the Party.

For those satisfied with a snapshot picture of history and a cursory look at the surface of Labour politics the answer is easy.

The Socialist Workers Party and Anarchists, enjoying a short term boost, will be only too pleased to offer the glib answer of “leave Kinnock’s Party and join the action outsides”

Unfortunately the world is not as simple as some of these comrades suggest. The history of British left politics is littered with failed attempts to build a mass working class alternative to Labour.

Asearly as 1901 the Marxist Social Democratic Federation left Labour’s forerunner, the Labour Representation Committee, only to find itself totally outflanked.

Communist

‘The early Communist Party was sectarian in its attitude towards Labour. It rectified this error and fought to affiliate to Labour on the same basis as the Independent Labour Pasty and the Fabians.

The Communists built a National Left Wing Movement in the Labour Party which was linked to the radical trade union Minority Movement.

The Communists’ success flowed from their fight to join the Labour Party — not a decision to leave it.

All this good work was fectively destroyed by the zig zagging of the Moscow im. posed line.

The biggest breakaway t Labour Party suffered was th ILP in 1932. Having lost thd fight for ILP MPs to imple; ment conference policy, 7,000 left — but the membershig rapidly declined further, leav. ing a mere 4,000 by 1935. In the post-war years whole plethora of left group attempted to establish themsel: ves as independent parties! Small pockets of support wer built in the trade unions but n serious challenge to Labo was ever made.

The most notable far-te! successes were the estab: ment of the Vietnam Solidari Campaign by the IMG and Anti-Nazi League by the SWP but both groups were totall: eclipsed by the Bennite left.

Labour

The key to the developmen| of the left is its involvement i the Labour Party. Througho the history of the Party the lef has always found its expre: sion within the Party’s ranks. As early as 1909 the ILH published Let us Transfor the Labour Party, a pamp arguing for Labour's transfor mation into a socialist party. After the departure of the ILP in 1932, Stafford Cripp" Socialist League took up th left mantle fighting for Com munist affiliation.

After the Second World War the Bevanites grouped around Keep Left, Keeping Left, and the Brains Trusts tq challenge the Labour leade1 ship.

In the 70s and 80s thd democracy movement wai formed to fight for the im| plementation of Labour’; Programme 1973. The figi culminated in Benn’s leade:

Labour Briofing No..102 May 9th-22nd Page 9

Labour Party Socialists Special Feature

tting the twin-track approach into practice.

t— join

‘Socialists!

ship challenge of 1981.

A major task for LPS is to stem the flow of left activists

“out of the Party.

To abandon Labour would leave Kinnock unchallenged, postpone the development of a socialist current in the aftermath of the General Election andcondemn ourselves to selfimposed political marginalisation.

Many on the Labour left instinctively understand that we must stay and fight but fail to offer any new strategy.

The CLPD simply state that we must “defend the gains of the early 80s.” Unfortunately most of these gains have been extinguished and there is no resolutionary road to success in the forseeable future.

LPS is about a new approach to rebuilding the Labour left. uc

Previous issues of Labour Briefing have outlined how Poll Tax Unions have been used to recruit to the Labour Party. In the last issue John Wray explained how he was raising non-payment as a Council candidate in the local elections.

It is through this approach dubbed the “twin-track” approach by the Socialist Movement that we can begin to recruit and rebuild.

LPS will be discussing in detail how to take campaigning initiatives on:

+Labour Party Democracy

«Poll Tax

General Election

«Reproductive Rights

*Black Organisation

+Lesbian and Gay Rights

Trade Union Solidarity

+Health

International Issues.

Itis essential that during the General Election we continue to campaign around socialist politics. The LPS conference will discuss how we can

launch a socialist campaign for a Labour victory.

During the election period the left must be visible and fighting for.a Labour victory.

We will have to explaifi Whyeses:

people should not just vote Labour but join and fight for a new set of policies and a different kind of leadership.

The election of a Labour government would transform the political situation.

Government

The record of the 1974-79 Labour government is a sorry one: sit had tested its first atom bomb before the end of its first month of office;

by the end of March the compulsory planning agreements became voluntary;

*Benn, a vigorous supporter of Labour’s industrial policy, was demoted (from Industry to Energy);

+the Labour government was kept in office by deals with Ulster Unionists;

*the government was condemned in the European court of Human Rights for its record in Ireland;

sand finally it enforced a 5% pay limit which brought it into conflict with the trade unions.

‘The last Labour government started with the most radical manifesto since 1945. Kinnock will start with a manifesto sanitised by the Policy Review.

Instead of facing a massive shop-stewards movement boosted by a victorious miners strike, with “left” leaders such as Jones and Scanlon, such a government will face a weakened trade union movement.

‘The likelihood is that a Kinnock government will be considerably worse than those of Wilson and Callaghan.

LPS has a key role to play. If the beginnings of an organisation can be built now, the left will be in a much better position to fight back.

S must make links with the Socialist Movement Trade: Union Committee to ensure that trade union struggle is reflected in the Labour Party.

Our role as LPS will be to translate working class action into a struggle for leadership at every level of the Labour Party.

‘This will be difficult as disputes such as that on the London Underground by-pass formal trade union structures. The struggle for leadership must be linked to all our solidarity work.

Kinnock is aware that trade union opposition to a Labour government will be his weakest link,

The Edmunds proposals are designed to wall-off this avenue of dissent by weakening the trade union link and its expression through the block vote.

LPS must respond by fighting to defend and democratise the block vote so the opposition to Kinnock’s government can express itself.

The tasks before the LPS conference are daunting, but the response has been very positive and we can hope to provide the kemel of the organisaiton the left requires.

With over 100 registrations at the time of writing, and a growing number of sponsors, we are well placed to begin, in a modest way, the task of building LPS.

The political situation in Britain is changing rapidly so ‘we must prepare to ensure that we are capable of meeting the

challenges that lie ahead.

Small steps forward today will reap huge dividends in the event of a Labour government.

PHOTO: Nick Hazlewood

It was pledged to a radical programme of nationalisation and social welfare.

In 1951 it collapsed, following three years of “wage restraint”. It had even begun to backtrack on its commitment to a free health service. Aneurin Bevan resigned as Health Minister when prescription charges were introduced.

Thirteen years of Tory government followed.

From 1964 Wilson's Labour goverment gave its supporters six years of crisis management, wage controls and threatened “union reform”. Many workers tumed away from Labour in disgust. Worse followed under Heath.

Wilson returned in 1974 amid a social crisis.

He was rapidly obliged to concede key pay increases, the repeal of the anti-union In-

trial Relations Act and the

(responsible for surcharging and disqualifying Clay Cross Councillors).

Five years later Labour fell from office, having totally alienated its base of support by wage controls and IMF-in-

By Mike Phipps Woolwich CLP

These experiences show that whilst Labour’s policies are important, what Labour actually does in office largely depends on the conditions in which it is elected and which develop while it is in office.

Tt now appears a distinct possibility that Labour will win the next election — despite the reams of defeatist chatter to thecontrary, peddled by Marxism Today.

It is therefore not premature to ask the obvious question: what is to stop it all happening again?

‘What is to prevent a repeat scenario: +Labour getting elected when the Tories have run the economy into crit +a Kinnock government imposing austerity, cuts and wage controls; ewhilst the Tories, out of office, repair themselves politically and prepare to resume government?

After all, there is a long tradition of the ruling class tuming to labour movement leaders to do its dirty work.

An early example was Churchill making TGWU

Next the General Election

Labour’s betrayals:

past and

leader Emest Bevin Minister of Labour and Conscription in his wartime govemment. Is Kinnock doomed to play a similar role?

We socialists want a Labour govemment as soon as possible. Its successor failuremay depend very much on what we do now.

Current ialk about the return of a Labour goverment is due chiefly to the development of a growing mass movement

Po ainst

the assaults on education and against environmental problems.

Thatcher’s record unpopularity reflects not only the failure of her policies — it shows that there is a growing body of people actively opposed to her goverment.

The March 3ist Poll Tax demo wasan expression of this active opposition. And reason why we should call for a General Election now.

We must make the call now not only because we cannot afford another day of the Thatcher goverment, but because a Labour government elected under conditions of mass mobilisation would have to begin to satisfy the needs of a confident and combative movement of workers and the poor.

This would include a massive injection of funds into the public sector, the repeal of the Poll Tax, a major programme of job creation and defence cuts, and the takeover of financial institutions to pay for this,

‘The last thing Neil Kinnock wants is an immediate election!

Much remains to be done in re-drafting policies which the Party has never accepted and remodelling Labour's organisation to minimise the voice of the rank and file, and ultimately to abolish Conference.

Kinnock hopes to come to power under normal electoral conditions — quite arare thing for a Labour govemment! Perhaps he believes that he stands

a better chance of sticking to his preferred policies on that basis.

However, if the working class is not calling the shots, then the ruling class will be.

Unless the labourmovement is mobilised from the outset, making demands on Labour, forcing it to act in its interests, then the pressure from the bourgeoisie, its banks and institutions for Labour to carry out Tory policies will be immense, as the Wilson and Cal-

Beovernments showed.

next Labour goverm delivers in the interests of the working class begins now.

The Labour Party Socialists Conference is an important start. It should lead with a broad socialist campaign for Labour to win the next election. The building of a socialist campaign for a Labour victory — as opposed to the anodyne media event we can expect from the leadership — is not about the left finding some “acceptable” basis on whichtocall for a Labour vote.

Voting

Inimmediate electoral terms there is no alternative to voting Labour.

Rather it Would express the aspirations of all those in the Party and the wider movement who fear that many policies established over the years are now being jettisoned by the leadership without even a Conference vote.

It would also highlight the fact that without the heroic struggles of the ambulance workers, dockers, seafarers and many others, and without the mass anti-Poll Tax movement, a future Labour government would still be a distant possibility.

Many sections of workers have been defeated by the Tories. A future Labour government owes them a great debt. A socialist campaign fora Labour victory will fight to ensure it is paid.

PHOTO: Andrew Wiard (Report)

ee ee eee agen

The Women’s Page

bour MPs’ Voting Record

Labour MPs voting “yes” to an 18, 20, or 22 week time limit:

MP Constituency Lowest no. of weeks they voted for

John Battle

Stuart Bel G Bermingham Dennis Canavan .. Tom Clarke. John Cumming: Lawrence Cunliffe Dick Douglas. Andrew Faulds .. Frank Field Peter Hardy. J Home Robertson. David Lambie T McAvoy... C Macdonald. John McFall

Gavin Strang. Keith Vaz.. T Worthington. James Wray

RoaSSaaaaea

iv 8

Labour MPs who voted against 28 weeks (in addition to the list above)

George Buckley. . Hemsworth Ronnie Campbel - Blyth valley Stan Crowther . Rotherham Tam Dalyell . Linlithgow

Denzil Davies D Dewar... Don Dixon

. Llanelli . Glasg. Garscadden . Jarrow

Patrick Duffy . Attercliffe

Norman Godman......... Greenock

Lin Golding... - Newcastle-u-Lyme Thomas Graham . Renfrew W

Wyn Griffiths... .Bridgend

David Hinchcliffe - Wakefield Norman Hogg. “CUimbernauld Jimmy Hood . Clydesdale

Leicester W Hartlepool Wrexham Cardiff S Aberavon Burnley Hamilton Coventry NW Blackburn Dewsbury

Greville Jannet Ted Leadbitter John Marek .

George Robertson. G Robinson.

Labour MPs who did not vote:

Allen Adams... Paisley N

Donald Andersor Swansea E

Joe Ashton... Bassetlaw

Harry Barnes Derbyshire NE

Jeremy Bray Motherwell S 4

D. Campbell . Workington

Mark Fisher .. Stoke-on-Trent C.

Ted Garret Wallsend

Bruce George Walsall S

John Gilbert. Dudley E

Eric Heffer Liverpool Walton George Howarth. Knowsley N

Denis Howell . irmingham Small Heath Sean Hughes .. Knowsley S 4 James Lamond. Oldham Central and Royton Eddie Loyde: Liverpool Garston

Tom Pendry.. Staybridge and Hyde Stuart Randall Kingston upon Hull

Jack Thompsor Wansbeck

Pat Wall* Bradford N

R Wareing Liverpool, W Derby “Pat Wall was too ill to attend and vote,

A CALL TO ALL WOMEN

PICKET THE IRISH EMBASSY! 17 Grosvenor Place, London SW1 (Victoria Tube) 15th May, 5-7pm In the Republic of Ireland not only is abortion illegal, it is an offence to give women the names and addresses of abortion clinics abroad.

On May 15th 1990 the European Court will hear Openline and the Well Woman’s case — that Irish women’s right to information on the procuring of an abortion is not in breach of the Treaty of Rome.

If successful, the case will proceed to the European Court of Human Rights.

Organised by WOMEN AGAINST

FUNDAMENTALISM, BM Box 2706. Tel. no. for picket 081-568 9803 (eves).

The new abortion clause, tabled as an addition to the Embryology Bill by Sir Geoffrey Howe, was passed reducing the upper time limit on abortions to 24 weeks.

By VALERIE COULTAS

But several exceptions were included in this clause which removed any upper time limit if there was a risk of:

“grave permanent injury to the physical or mental-health of the pregnant woman” or “of foetal abnormality”.

‘The Infant Life Preservation ‘Act was also separated from abortion law, removing the threat of criminal. prosecution of doctors who terminate a potentially viable foetus after 24 weeks.

This means that the doctor's medical judgement will actually take precedence over a statutory definition of viability. Z

Despite the general reduction, this neW clause will offer some protection to doctors who perform late abortions.

‘This paradox explains the fury of the anti-abortionists who hoped for a 22 week limit. They denounced the new clause as allowing “for abortion on demand”.

While the outcome was not as radical as they suggest, they clearly had grounds for anger.

Embryology Bill

Anti-abortionists taste defeat!

Their expected first parliamentary victory for 23 years ended up with a clause that defended existing medical practice and ensured that doctors would be less afraid of prosecution.

Consensus

The progressive consensus had been established with a large number of Labour MPs andat least a third of Tory MPs voting for 24 weeks and theexceptions.

‘The Tory vote on abortion, as argued by abortion activists over a long period, can be explained by the clear divisions inthe Tory Party over the abortion issue and the fact that many Tories are guided by the medical profession.

Wider economic motives play a part, including needing a mobile female labour force; as does — in the impassioned case of Theresa Gorman — a very bourgeois conception of

Access to Di

Anti-abortionists tasted defeat: just as they did in the anti-Alton

women’s rights.

But while the vote was a big boost for pro-choice activists and many, women heaved a sigh of relief, it was not an unqualified victory.

‘The final choice for a termination, as NAC has always argued, should be with the woman “as early as possible and as late as necessary”.

Women always make responsible decisions about

keeps the power with doctors,

the majority of whom will never experience dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

‘The Embryo Bill is now in committee — the composition of which has dismayed the fanatics in LIFE and SPUC.

Jo Richardson has now tabled an amendment arguing the case for equal opportunity of access to Donor Insemination and the New Reproductive Technologies.

For the sake of the children...

An important new clause passed quietly into the Embryology Bill at the Report stage in the House of Lords.

It states that no woman shall be given access to donor insemination (DI) or infertility treaments unless:

“account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be bom as a result of the treatment, and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.”

The intention is, as the Lord Chancellor made clear in moving the amendment, to prevent lesbians and single women from gaining access to Dland infertility treatments in a politically acceptable way.

Lady Saltoun’s full-frontal approach of banning access by

By Rebecca Flemming Women for Socialism

all unmarried women and Ann Winterton’s method of labelling certain groups of women as unfit to be mothers were both rejected in favour of the vague, anodyne and virtually unchallengeable concern for the welfare of the children.

However, the concrete effects will be almost identic:

The “welfare of any child” is far from being a neutral phrase which will be interpreted objectively by the judges, government and medical establishment.

Lesbian mothers who have

lost custody of their children in the courts purely because of their sexuality can testify to this.

Nor does the vague or ambiguous wording of legislation offer any protection. It may be very effective in promoting self-censorship, following the example of Section 28.

In a welcome countermove to this dangerous clause, Jo Richardson has tabled an amendment in Committee seeking to ensure that the Authority established to oversee the licensing of clinics must:

“give due consideration to equal opportunities in relation to patients applying for treatment.”

Though again rather imprecisely worded, this would

campaign (above).

This move is strongly supported by NAC, STAC and CADI, all of whom have made it clear, right from the beginning of this Bill, that women are opposed to discrimination. STAC and NAC will also be pressing forthe abortion lawto be extended to the north of Treland. Briefing supporters. should be putting resolution demning the Labour MPs who yoted for

not bother to tum up (see table).

Women should continue to

build large energetic local campaigns, ready to pull out the stops for future CADI and STAC events. ‘There are hopes of promoting an Amendment to the Bill which would allow abortion on request to one doctorin the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

If passed, this would bring British Abortion Law fully into line with Europe and a represent aclear gain for all women.

enable the Authority to refuse to grant licences to clinics which discriminated in their provision.

There is also the threat this Bill couldend up being atradeoff between different women’s rights.

If major concessions are made on abortion along while further restrictions are placed on access to DI, the pro-choice movement would be torn apart. Such divisive schemes must be prevented.

A further loss of lesbian rights and a worsening of the situation for single women is too high a price to pay for small liberalisations in abortion law.

Women must be united in the fight for our right to choose!

BOOK REVIEW

A story to test the heart

Eva Luna, by Isabelle Allende, Penguin, £4.99

Consuelo pauses from her work of scrubbing floors when her labour pains become unbearable.

She has conceived a child through her sympathy for a native South-

American gardener dying from a snake bite.

By Peter Chowney Hackney South & Shoreditch CLP

She gives birth to her daughter alone and in secret, with the cook intervening as a late and impromptu midwife, greeting

nominious, “Bad luck, it's a girl.”

So begins the life of Eva Luna, named after the Luna tribe to which her father belonged.

Isabelle Allende’s book traces the first 25 years of Eva’s life through the revolutionary turmoil of post-war Latin America, her fortunes and loves intertwining with poverty, personal and social upheaval, and a background of corrupt officialdom and political decay.

And it traces the parallel life of Rolf Carle in faraway Austria, son of a brutal Nazi who ends his life strung up inthe forest.

Set to converge like two satellites on coincidental orbits, he and Eva are part of the peculiar coincidental scheme of things rather

the child with an ig- thanany logic.

MAGAZINE REVIE

That what T) 3 call democracy

Sandinistas: governing from below?

By JOE JARVIS

The spring issue of Nicaragua Today, magazine »f the Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign, now on sa’>, is entitled Governing from below.

The main feature, by NSC General Secretary Julir1 Jacobs, on the recent elections which the Sandinis. 5 fost, is an attempt to come to terms with the unexpected defeat.

Unfortunately, its over optimistic tone and talk of the FS. i1 already “bouncing back” mar an otherwise vital assessme iit of the situation in Nicaragua and the prospects for the revolution.

The other unmissable item is the extraordinary interview with Yorlin Ubeda Rodriguez, the first woman kidnap victim ever to get out of a contracamp alive.

Yorlin was abducted by the contras in 1984 and held by them for five years. She was subjected to repeated torture and multiple rape and in 1987 gave birth to a son in captivity who later died.

Yorlin's story is one of unforgettable courage and epitomises the determination of the Nicaraguan people to win peace and freedom.

The AGM of the NSC on May 19th and 20th will be a timely opportunity to discuss the new situation and the tasks of solidarity acti Ss.

On her journey to this, Eva's weapon is her power as a storyteller, weaving a spell of kinds over those she encounters.

Like the soldier in» the town square, she sells them a past, ina country and ata time where no one has a past to be proud of; creating fact out of fantasy, possibly even Rolf Carle himself.

For those who have enjoyed Isabelle Allende’s previous books, House of the Spirits and Of Love and Shadows, this could be disappointing.

There is nothing here of the extraordinary complexities or epic tale of her earlier books.

Here is a simple story, of the politicisation of an oppressed South American woman and the characters she encounters along her path.

These include benevolent prostitutes and transexuals, eccentric Yugoslav artists, corrupt cabinet ministers, paternal Turkish merchants, and earnest young revolution-aries, oozing machismo like an olive press.

But it's an episodic journey, notreally tying together nor forming a whole, and we're left wondering what comes next, the tale seems

Isabelle Allende does no have the power of Gabriel Garcia Marquez to produce a story which is a delight for its words alone — or if she does, it's lost in translation.

The core of this book, stripped of much of the magic of her previous two, is about stories and storytelling, the mystery of fact and fantasy, how lives are shaped by political realities and the past is reshaped in retrospective.

Approach this book as another House of the Spirits and you will be disappointed.

But approach it with a fresh acceptance of a simple story — of political and personal coming-ofage, of a young woman realising her own power and the nature of her oppression, and you may~be moved to tears.

This book should be compulsory reading for all left politicos: if you remain dry eyed at its ending, then you have not the soul to call yourself a revolutionary.

Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign AGM

May 19th & 20th 10.30am-5.30pm Caxton House, St John’s Way, London N19

(nearest tube Archway)

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 11

Reviews

BOOK REVIEW

Third World children

teenagers in May 1979,

Thai teenagers are held

The Next Generation, by _captive in the brothels of hundreds of youth

Judith Ennew and Bangkok. volunteered for the

Brian Milne, Zed Books, The lack of education or — Sandinistas,

1990, £26.95, £7.95 health care makes Were they wrong to do

paperback. depressingly repetitive so?

reading in the case Some of the examples Over half of the studies considered, of individual brutality world’s although the authors against children, like that are traceeia acknowledge the of Banyo the 12 year old Children are always improvements in Biafran who was mutilated

the first to suffer the Nicaragua, Cuba and and tortured then painted effects of economic and other countries which a self-portrait before political power — war, underwent a popular dying, are harrowing. famine and disease, yet revolution. u But the chief reason they are teqally and The main problem with why this book is so politically excluded from __ the book is a lack of dispiriting is that the power in all societies. perspective: solution to the problem

proposed is governments becoming more enlightened, changing eir ways and adopting E f the

Throughout, the child is B Te aa considered solely as a Woolwich CLP auth Arica schoolchildren who

The catalogue of abuse _ school boycotts which Rights 6 s is relentless. In Turkey fuelled the Black upsurge, The authors’ evidence children as young as a point which the book flatly contradicts such a

dead-end approach. Itis only in those societies where the

seven are jailed in adult

does not adequately prisons. In many regional

develop.

conflicts children are Children who take u;

pushed into soldiering and arms are viewed as. the established imperialist are tortured by their object of manipulation. ordet bas heen

captors to betray their But, as the authors overthrown that the families. admit, when the einimum conditions fave

been established for a

Economic oppression is better deal for Third World

equally intense. In India the young routinely work their way to crippling illness, while thousands of

Nicaraguan National Guard under Samoza began a “Herod policy” of exterminating the capital's

Aborigine poster shows solidarity of oppressed youth against deliberate attacks : from oppressor police.

; ( :

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 12

Trade Union Briefing

MSF Conference

Bankrupt union; bankrupt bureaucrats!

The third Annual Conference of MSF was held at Harrogate from April 28th to May 2nd.

It saw an entrenchment of the central bureaucracy at the expense of grass roots activity at branch and regional level.

The key debate in this process of centralisation of power was on the finances of the union.

In 1989, MSF (Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union) had an operating loss of £3.3 million. The union is some £9.5 million in the red.

The National Executive Council (NEC) might have proposed the selling of one of the Union’s two London head offices (shortly to be three), clawing back some of the

Leaderships duck a fignt:

Faced with massive increases in rents, mortgages — not to mention the Poll Tax —

© add insult to injury, the anniversary date has now been moved from April to May, so the real increase is only 8.52%, and the unions had already tumed down 8.5%.

The NUR and the drivers union ASLEF believe the membership will be conned by the “breaking of the 9% barrier”. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As jobs continue to go and productivity increases, the members know what is at stake.

By a Briefing supporter in the NUR .

No one was prepared to take industrial action over one or two per cent, but for a really substantial increase of 15-20% there would have been solid support.

‘The unions’ leadership are not prepared for another summer of discontent while Labour rides high in the opinion polls.

But this “don’t rock the boat” argument could be used next year—a possible election year — and the year after — Labour’s first year in office — and so on.

But a demoralised workforce will not go out and vote Labour— whereas acombative one will force a Labour government to make commitments to improve workers’ living standards, not ask them to make sacrifices.

By Glenn Sutherland Conference delegate

money held in inactive branches, or prioritising recruitment.

Instead, they pushed a rule change through Conference which halved the funding of all branches from 10% of subscriptions to 5%, and reduced the funding of Regional Councils from 3% to 1.5%, with an extra 1% for education to be administered centrally.

Dressed up as a response to MSP’s financial crisis, these proposals will in fact have no effect on either the income or expenditure of the union as a

grades will result in greater productivity, job losses, anend to national bargaini

ing of hard won conditions.

‘These are the very issues the dispute was’ about last summer! >

‘The unions claim that acceptance of the pay offer will leave them free to fight on these issues. =

But the NUR Exccutive, lacking stomach to confront BR head on, will leave different sections to fight on their own —a recipe for defeat.

Some sections are being permitted “trial periods” —exactly what happened with the introduction of Driver Only on the Bedford-St Pancras line. BR has never looked back.

Part of this year’s pay claim was for a reduction from 39hours to 37-hours per week (which the salaried staff already have).

There appears to have been no progress on this except a statement from BR to say that any reduction must go handin-hand with increased productivity.

The NUR is moving towards merger with the National Union of Seamen (NUS) tohelp stem its falling numbers and halt a dire financial crisis, and keep Jimmy Knapp on the, TUC General Council as the NUR's membership falls below 100,000.

ASLEF continues to see itself as the “elite” union.

But the complete sell-out by both bureaucracies over this pay claim and the preparations for privatisation clearly shows that the members of both unions have more in common with each other than any loyal-

ty to their leaderships.

whole. :

The real result will be to remove political power from the members at branch and regional level and place it in the hands of the NEC and unelected National Officers.

Many branches will have real difficulty meeting their administrative costs, let alone funding local activity.

Crucial to the NEC obtaining the required two thirds majority for these proposals was the so-called “Unity Left” organisation.

In some parts of the MSF, “Unity Left” includes many militant union activists. At national level, however, this “son. of the TASS Broad Left” operates as an electoral and political machine, transmitting the commands of the MSF leadership down to the members.

“Unity Left” has now drawn in members of the bureaucracy from the old ASTMS side as well as TASS.

With the CPB (Morning Star) in complete political disarray, the dominant political

the Communist.PRasty6f Great Britain'(CPGB).

Rover workers at Longbridge have decisively rejected management’s much vaunted thirty-one and a half hour week deal.

In a ballot, the workforce voted 7,000 against and 5,000 in favour.

This may have surprised those who saw Jack Adams, TGWU national officer and senior negotiator, on the television praising it as a huge victory for the unions.

Adams described the deal as “the best hours agreement negotiated in any car company anywhere in the world.”

Readers of the Morning Star must be baffled as well. It used its whole front page to praise the deal to the skies under a glowing headline: “37-Hour Triumph at Rover”.

What the Morning Star did not say, however, was that the deal was highly contentious from the outset.

Despite the strongest possible recommendation from the national officials, shop stewards throughout Rover voted almost unanimously against it.

In Cowley the deal failed to get the support of any of the shop stewards, who voted that they would rather stay on 39hours.

At Longbridge the works committee accepted their views were rejected after a heated session of the joint shop stewards committee.

Asaconsequence, although Conference reaffirmed some policies to the left of the Labour leadership — in particular on unilateralism and the repeal of all anti-union legislation — most of the political debates resulted in a procession of defeats for the left.

A motion on the Poll Tax which called for industrial action, non- prosecution by Labour Local Authorities, and support for mass non-payment was roundly defeated after the arguments had been won by the movers.

Progress

The same fate befell a composite calling for withdrawal from Ireland, although significant progress was made in that the Irish Region of the union was no longer able to impose a veto on discussion of the national question.

Instead, after a good debate, the NEC supported the position of the Irish Region to oppose the composite. Conference dutifully concurred, with about 10-15 %:supporting withdrawal,

‘The strategy of the CPGB, and, by extension, of “Unity

In fact the only people who were in favour of this world historic breakthrough were people who would never have to work under it.

What the media, including the Morning Star, also forgot to mention was that the deal was not the result of a claim by the unions — it was management who made the running from the start.

By Alan Thornett

Rover workers’ annual wage review is not until November. This fact alone should have suggested that management were riot about to offer the best thing since sliced bread.

Management want major changes in shift pattems including continuous working — 24-hours-a-day 7-days-aweek — in the engine plant. They also want speed-up on the tracks and they see this type of deal as the way to get it.

The Confed campaign for the shorter working week was not directly involved, since Rover are no longer a member of the Engineering Employers Federation.

They have no doubt seen the advantages other employers have been getting from the strings attached to the various 37-hour agreements.

Since they will eventually be confronted with the

NSF

MANUFAC|URING« *PNANCE

REGIONAL OFFICERS

FLAG DAY

Support our Health Services

Stickers

produced by left conference delegates in response to the

NEC's (Ken Gill's) plea for money for MSF head office.

Left” is a dead end. The belief that MSF can be built into an effective militant union by central direction is a delusion. Our aim must be to win the best activists to a fight for democratisation of the union structures and against the leadership both of the union of of “Unity Left”. Such a fight should include the following demands: +The restoration of branch and regional funding as of right toa level that will sustain grass roots campaigning. +The restoration of an Annual Conference at which every branch is represented. *Fair and efficient election procedures — leading to the election of full-time officials, Curtailment of the power of the NEC and full-time officials — NEC members to step down aftera fixed period of ofThese reforms must be coupled with support for economic and political struggles in the workplace and the

Rover workers reject “the best deal in the world”

problem, they have chosen to get in with a good deal now.

‘They may also have been encouraged by the gains they made a few years ago in the move from 40-hours to 39.

Then they were able to negotiate the abolition of onehour 40-minutes of relief times plus speed-up in turn for a reduction of one hour in the working week! The workforce would have been far better off staying on 40-hours.

The Rover deal is aimed at Longbridge which will be its only mass-production plant after most of Cowley closes down next year.

They are introducing two new models — the Rover 200 and the Rover 400— and want to make the maximum use of the investment and automation involved.

The deal involves workers on continuous working on the engine tracks, working a thirty-one and a half hour week over a five week period; workers on a three shift system on a 36 hour week; and workers on days and nights working 37 hours.

All three involve a worsening of the general conditions of work — working weekends without premium payments and with less than the average pay eamed at the present time.

It also involves cuts in relief time — which are a major problem, particularly for line and an increase in work effort to provide the self-

community. There will be no shortage of these over the next year or two.

“Unity Left” is incapable of leading, or even participating in, this fight as a national organisation. As along term aim, we should support the formation of a new national left organisation.

In the meantime, activists in the regions should be organising locally and drawing in as many as possible of the supporters of “Unity Left”.

In some regions the balance of forces may make it impossible to organise outside “Unity Left” structures, but in any case the fight for democratic reform cannot wait. ——

If MSF members want to discuss the ideas raised in this article farther, write to Glenn

Sutherland, c/o Labour

Briefing, PO Box 1235, London N42UY, —____

financing element of the deal.

Relief time is often called “tea-breaks”, which is something of a misnomer since they arethe only time a worker is off the track during a shift — maybe ten minutes in a four hour stint with the track running bell to bell at 100% effort.

The problem of strings has dogged the 35/37-hour campaign in engineering from the outset.

Itis clear that the attitude of union leaders sitting behind their desks in their offices is that any deal which results ina reduction in hours is a good thing, particularly if you get some publicity from it. i

On the shop floor, however, itis a different matter. A reduction in hours is a good thing providing the workforce ends up with improved conditions at the end of the day.

According to the Morning Star (which after a full front page praising the deal had a couple of paragraphs on the back page reporting its rejection), management is now to meet national officials to discuss what went wrong in the ballot and what can be done about it.

Management are said to have considered imposing the deal but have decided against it at the present time.

No doubt they will try their other usual tactic of making minor, irrelevant changes until confusion sets in and a ballot goes the right way.

Plans to create a new public sector “super union” of 1.6 million members are Progressing fast.

A common report is to be submitted to the NUPE, NALGO and COHSE conferences.

The report “The Challenge of a New Union” — is very general, vague and/or contradictory, reflecting the positions of three union bureaucracies.

It accepts there will be a union with members, Branches, an Executive and a Conference, but more than this is not clear.

On branches, at one point the report talks about the kind of “single service” often very large branches as NALGO has now.

But by the end of the same paragraph the Report hascome out in favour of “a variety of branch arrangements and ... local structures, for example, based on existing small branches”.

Integrated

It wants an integrated union, but refers to service groups, ¢.g. Health and Local Government, ina way which gives the impression that a federation of independent unions is planned.

On political funds, it seeks to balance the NUPE and COHSE links to the Labour Party with NALGO’s pledge on a further ballot before affiliation to Labour.

Two, or even three, funds are suggested and it is not clear how this is anything other than contracting into the Labour Party in the new union.

This scheme seems to fit in with Tom Sawyer’s plans for the Labour Party and needs to be watched closely.

At the very least there should be a campaign in NALGO for the second ballot and for the Executive to lead the call for a “yes” vote,

Though such a merger is

overdue and to be welcomed, this Report is very much the bureaucracies’ response to their failure to resist the massive Tory attacks on public services since the 1987 election.

In local government there has been:

*Compulsory Competitive Tendering, with massive cuts in jobs and conditions even when the “in house” bid has won;

sthe Housing Act, which threatens the whole basis of Local Authority housing:

the Education Act, which transferred effective employment of workers in schools and colleges to the individual establishments;

sand of course the Poll Tax, which was designed to force councils to slash jobs and services and may result in the government taking on the job directly.

In the health service there have been further rounds of cuts and privatisations, with the threat of wholesale dismemberment of the NHS contained in the Health Service and Community Care Bill.

But public service cuts have been a fact forthe last 15 years and yet the bureaucracies were more than willing to let the divisions exist.

It has always been easier to attack-the other union for “selling out” thant i fightback.

Excuse

It has always been easier to use the lack of unity as an excuse for doing nothing, easier to attack NALGO for looking after “management” jobs rather than fighting cuts.

(“Why do you always cut real jobs? Why don't you go after those Mickey Mouse NALGO jobs?” asked one NUPE full-timer of a London Councillor in 1986),

It is a bitter truth that there are activists who seem to hate the other union more than they hate the employers and left

By Brian Elkington NUPE

—_——___ branches that are mirrored by right wing branches of the other union.

On a larger scale it was the NUPE bureaucracy who Promoted the tactic of “keep your head down and wait for Labour to win the 1987 clection”.

Their attacks on Liverpool and the London Boroughs caused such demoralisation and demobilisation that the new Tory attacks after 1987 were introduced with virtually no opposition.

Wholesale

It is the wholesale loss of jobs and conditions, the loss of whole departments, and ultimately the loss of many thousands of members which have forced the bureaucracies to look to merger to defend themselves and their Positions as much as to defend their members.

With this track record the bureaucracies want and need the union stitched-up.

It.is easy to assume that, despite the references to the need for stewards’ commitfees, activist involvement, etc., talks of the

he repo

merger being “membership centred” it means the “beads and mirrors” policy of avoiding the fight and only offering services, is top priority.

The real problem of the merged conferences and executives is not their size, but that they could overtum the platform or not go along with the wishes of the bureaucracy.

In spite of the bureaucracies’ previous failures, the new, merged union should be in a better Position to fight against the Tory attacks,

However, the left needs to be organised within and across the three unions now, as it must fight to defend existing democratic structures, the Labour Party links, and other better features of the existing unions,

Another hot summer of “will

they, won’t they strike?”

At the 1989 Conference of NUPE, the National Local Government Committee was challenged on its total lack of guidance, let alone leadership, in the 1988/9 payround.

This 1990 Conference should be roundly condemning a “leadership” who seem determined to ignore the anger of many activists.

Most upsetting to activists are the backdoor attempts of central government last

By Sally Morawetz Chair, Nottingham City NUPE (personal capacity)

summer to stamp out national pay and conditions and, by the way, the need for national unions! ‘Delegates mustcondemn our national “representatives” who clearly had no intention of leading a fightback — let alone in-

forming their membership of what the strings would mean.

(| wasn’t the only one depending absolutely on

NALGO literature for publicity and news.) Determination

The vote for no action was hardly surprising given NUPE's determination to wish itself invisible in the face of a struggle.

For all the guidance we've had so far, this year’s pay claim might also not be happening-as far as NUPE

NUP

members are concerned.

For once the claim really does cater for the low paid APT&C workers: a flat rate of £1,500, 35 hours week, and a minimum of 28 days holiday.

We need to demand a campaign, starting now, of information and industrial action in support of the claim and we must throw out any attempt by our “leadership” to play down the success of the strikes led by NALGO last year.

20-24 May, 1990 BLACKPOOL (_

Labour Briefing No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 13

Trade Union Briefing

The left must lead the fight to overcome the sectionalism the bureaucracy has created,

and fight for a programme and a leadership which will defend jobs, conditions, and services.

By SALLY MORAWETZ

As the Poll Tax bites Councils are selling out on yet more workers.

Local Authorities, in their headlong rush to comply with government legislation, are helping to ensure that local services are handed over to local cowboys (or at least that the workforce’s terms and conditions are totally devastated). z

Many NUPE branches are now beginning to realise that action against cuts in jobs, conditions and services cannot and must not be hived off until we have a Labour government.

Labour Councils cannot be let off the hook— either Labour Councillors support workers interests or they act against us.

Tired of watching backroom deals to trade off members jobs and conditions, Hackney, Amber Valley, and Motherwell Branches are calling for concerted action against privatisation. z

Conference delegates should support their calls and ignore the predictable pitiful bleats from the platform about the need to wait.

Now is the time to go the offensive and build on the success of mass action against the Poll Tax.

International Briefing

Who stands for the working class?

Following Hungary’s elections, GUS

FAGAN

‘es a comprehensive

breakdown of results and analysis of political parties invaluable to all socialists following developments in the battle between planning and the market.

The two main parties of the centre-right won an overwhelming victory in the Hungarian elections,

The Democratic Forum (MDF) and the Free Democrats (SZDSZ) received two-thirds of the votes.

The old Communist Party, now the Socialist Party (MSZP), won less than 9%; while the newly-formed Social Democratic Party (SZDP) didn’t even make it to: the second round, having won only 3.5% in the first round.

The Forum has now formed a coalition with the Smallholders and Christian Democrats.

No party defended any socialist altemative or put itself forward as the defender of working’¢las® interests during the transition period.

Anti-communism was a strong element in the campaign and no party wanted to be iden-

~ munism, socialism).

Hungarian. workers responded with apathy. Voter tum-out was only 63% in the first round and dropped to 45%

in the second. Rese ‘of the parties have a base in the working class and

there is a law which prevents them from organising in the factories. The working class was not an actor in this political drama.

The election campaign itself was a glossy and rather tasteless imitation of Americanstyle campaigning financed by US. and German money.

Hardly a square foot of wall space, even in the backstreets, was free of large glossy posters of benovelent, well-dressed and beaming politicans — offering lots of image and charm but not much politics.

The Parties of the

Centre Right The Forum and Free Democrats differed very lit-

Although officially disapproved of, there were many manifestations of right-wing nationalism and anti-semitism in the Forum’s campaign.

There are only 80,000 jews in Hungary. Many old communists leaders were j>wish, as are some of the national leaders of the Forum’ main opponent, the Free Democrats.

The Free Democrats were the hardest defenders of a rapid privatisation and integration into the capitalist market. The Forum appeared to argue for a

more controlled and regulated transition.

A televised pre-election debate between Janos Kis and Jozsef Antall, leaders of the Free Democrats and Forum, failed to uncover any great differences, however, on the question of the economy.

The major parties in the Hungarian parliament are now committed to capitalist modernisation of Hungary.

It seems to me unlikely that any pre-war type of reactionary nationalism or anti-semitism will play an important role in future Hungarian politics.

Hungary’s Social

Democrats

Formed last year; the’Hun-

(garian Social Democratic Party (SZDP) declares itself the successor of the historic party of 1890-1948,

Party leader,

Anna

Petrasovits, claims 20,000 members, a large number of them older people who supported the social democrats after the war and during 1956. ;

After much internal wrangling, the SZDP finally adopted a programme and elected a leadership in November 1989.

Itattributes its poor showing in the elections to lack of time and resources to adequately prepare. Its confused programme and right-wing image, however, were nocompetition for the real parties of the right.

In its election programme, the SZSP called for a market economy, “controlled Privatisation” with state companies sold to a “cash-paying real owner” and for “uneconomic enterprises” to be “liquidated”.

On land ownership its position isto the right of the Forum, saying that “it must belong to the original owners and their descendants of the year 194748”.

Anna Petrasovics sees the first major tasks as “the creation of .a national entrepreneurial class and the integration of the economy into the world economy.” She describes these tasks as “not classical social democratic”?

The SZDP is now part of the Socialist Intemational.

The Ex-Communists On the day after the elections, large lorries were loading cases from the back entrance of the massive

building next to the partiament that once served as headquarters for Hungarian communism.

The party was moving tc new headquarters more appropriate to its size and to its support in the elections — less than 10%.

The Hungarian Socialist

Party (MSZP), the name adopted by the old party in Oc-

tober 1989, is a traditional so=

cial democratioparty.

Ifis committed to the mixed economy, welfare state and has already wants to join the Socialist Intemational.

Because of its long history of defending market reforms and privatisation, the MSZP. had no real ideological or anti-communist parties.

lis defence of welfarism (something not rejectd by the other parties) was the closest it came to representing working class interests.

It claims a membership of 50,000 and it provoked a bit of scandal during the election period with the news that it was selling off a major partyowned newspaper chain to the West German press baron, ‘Axel Springer.

Those members of the old party who didn’t join the MSZP continued as the Hungarian Socialist Workers Party, winning around 3.5% in the first round of voting.

The party elected a com pletely new leadership in December 1989. Itsnew leader is the 36-year old Gyula Thumer and it claims a membership of 80,000.

Its election programme opposes “domination by the big capitalist monopolies” and condemns the “illusion” of a free market economy.

The Left

‘The left is a tiny minority in’

Hungary today. At the conference of the Social Democratic Party in November, a breakaway group established the Independent Social Democratic Party (FSZDP). Led by Gyorgy Ruttner and with only afew hundred members, the party represents a more traditional type of social democratic politics. They stood very few candidates in the election but, unlike the official MSZDP, actually managed to get a candidate into the second round.

PHOTOS: Gus Fagan. Election posters on show in Hungary.

Established in 1988, the Left Altematives whichshas a f€W hundred members, bases itself on “a Marxist inspired critical theory of society”.

It sees the main task as the defence of workers interests and the promotion of ideas of self-management and “the collectivisation of economic and

‘The leading figures in the Left Alternative are academics from Budapest. Most of them are members of the Hungarian Socialist Party, although the LA has members from other patties also.

One of their leading figures, ‘Tamas Kraus, is lead) -f a democratic socialist current inside the HSP.

They have links with left wing currents in other Last European countries and are a leading force in the new movement to establish workers’ councils.

Workers Councils

Workers councils in the factories began to be formed last year, in- most cases as'a response to imminent closure and redundancies and the inactivity of the

In February of this year Jeft wing intellectuals took theinitiativein helpin. ‘.organise a national federation of these councils. About 30 councils are now affiliated to this federation.

The precise role of these councils is as yet unclear.

Left Alternative members like Laszlo Thoma (member of Workers Councils Information Bureau) would like to see the councils develop a strategy of self-management.

The HDF, now the lead’. x party in government, however would like to use then to break up the old trade unions.

The Forum has been instrumental in setting up anumber of councils that are not affiliated to the federation. Some see workers participation on the West German model as a more realistic alteative.

Different political forces

sees the councils as a way of gaining a foothold in the factories and the battle over the future of the councils will now

be stepped up.

Independent Trade

Unions F

Of Free ‘Trade Unions (FSZDL) now has about 17 unions affiliated to it. These are mostly small groups of intellectual and white collar workers, numbering around 60,000.

Politically the League is promoted by the Free Democrats and most of its full-time workers and vyolunteers are active supporters of the Free Democrats.

One of the groups affiliated to the League is Workers Solidarity whose principal leader, Gyorgy Kerenyi, wasa candidate for the Alliance of Young Democrats (FIDESZ) in the election.

Some _ see Workers Solidarity as an attempt by the Free Democrats to gain a base among non-intellectual workers.

‘The unknown element in Hungarian politics, as in Poland, is the response of the working class to the austerity and unemployment that will accompany privatisation.

That's why working class organisations (the official unions which the workers have not left, the new councils and the independent unions) are an important factor as the different political forces prepare for the inevitable struggles ahead.

*Documents from the Left Alternative, as well as from the Independent Social Democrats, will be published in the next issue of Labour Focus on Eastern Europe.. There will also be speakers from these groups at a conference organised by Labour Focus in June.

Labour Brieting No. 102 May 9th-22nd Page 15

International Briefing

Tories caught out over frame-up

The convictions of the Winchester Three were quashed last month.

This is the first time in the current phase of the “Troubles” that Irish defendants on terrorism ‘charges have won a first appeal.

By PIERS MOSTYN

There is now unprecedented pressure for the release of the Birmingham Six as innocent men, especially given the far greater publicity and breadth of support for their case compared to the Winchester Three.

Italso highlights the need for greater prominence for the case of the Broadwater Farm Three, recently boosted by Jesse Jackson's visit to the prisoners’ relatives followed by a message of support.

Coming only six months after the Guildford Four's telease, the Winchester Three victory underlines the disarray of Britain's criminalisation policy on the North of Ireland and the criminal justice system's increasing inability to deliver on it.

The appeal was upheld

onthe single ground of Tom King and Lord Denning’s well publicised comments equating an exercise of the right to silence with guilt in “terrorism” cases: But a much wider range of issues has been thrown up.

First and foremost, it highlights the Government's long stated desire to abolish the right of silence (already removed in the North of Ireland).

Opposition

It is a timely reminder to up opposition to this move, which is expected in the next parliamentary session.

Second, it shows that in such Irish cases, especially where conspiracy charges are involved, convictions are based on amounts of evidence that in normal criminal trials would be regarded as insufficient.

There was never any evidence that the Winchester Three actually did anything illegal. It was all circumstantial.

Third, it underlines the tremendously prejudicial role of media comment and publicity in all Irish cases.

This effectively reverses the “burden of proof’, so that those charged have to prove their innocence instead of the prosecution

proving guilt.

The possible existence of such prejudice in Irish cases has never been officially recognised before.

Linked to this is the exposure of Tom King’s role.

It is widely believed among the Winchester Three’s supporters that King’s press conference, like the timing of the trial to coincide with the first Tory Party conference in Brighton since the bombing, was planned deliberately.

Even if there was-no high

level state conspiracy, which we shall probably never know, at the very. least this reflects a grave misjudgement by a cabinet member who was Northern Ireland Secretary of State and “victim” of the Three's alleged conspiracy.

The outrage from the British establishment at the Irish courts’ refusal to extradite Father Ryan last year because of prejudice caused by Thatcher's comments can now be knocked

Soviet Union

down a peg or two.

Indeed this and more recent refusals to extradite can hardly be attributed to IRA-sympathising judges in Dublin any more, as the right wing tabloids would have us believe.

The argument from Westminster, and Bri ie Irish establish-

ester

Three appeal ur

the integrity of British justice and the fact that Irish defendants are treated fairly.

PHOTO: Wayne Edginton

Errol Smalley, uncle of Guildford Four victim Paul Hill, addresses a Labour Briefing tringe meeting at Labour Party Conference. The Winchester Four's release has followed that of the Guildford Four.

In fact the decision reflects nothing of the sort. What it and the Guildford Four show is that Irish defendants on terrorism charges have been subject to the most horrendous miscarriages of justice that the system has only belatedly, reluctantly and under pressure begin to rectify. . That this occurred meteyeals more about fractures -Withinsthe various wings of Britain's Tuli

circles than anything else.

It now seems certain that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) is heading for a split at, or before, the forthcoming 28th CPSU Congress in June.

The leadership of the CPSU has launched an attack on the so-called “Democratic Platform” (DP) tendency within the Party.

It has effectively declared that support for DP is incompatible with the CPSU programme and those adhering to such positions should leave the party. Igor Chubais, a leader of DP, has already been expelled.

“Democratic Platform” is the Party’s equivalent of the Inter-Regional Group (IRG) in the Congress of People’s Deputies. Many of the latter’s leading figures are also members of “Democratic Platform”.

DP was founded on January 20th-21st 1990 in Moscow at a conference representing 55,000 Party members. It is claimed that DP is supported by up toa third of Party members.

DP’s founding document, the “Democratic Platform”, was even published in Pravda on March 3rd 1990 as part of

the debate for the 28th Conss.

This is the first time since the 1920s that a programmatic statement of an organised tendency other than that of the party leadership has been published in'the official party press.

The “Democratic Platform” is acounterposition to the official Draft Platform adopted by the CPSU Central Committee in February 1990.

By Rick Simon Labour Focus on Eastern Europe

It argues for: @democratisation of the

party and the elimination of “democratic centralism”;

@the abolition of Article 6 of the USSR Constitution guaranteeing the CPSU’s monopoly of political power,

@for the CPSU to fight for its positions in society within the framework of competitive elections and a multi-party system as a parliamentary, rather than a “vanguard”, party.

The CPSU as the sole, legal, political party, with amembership of 19 million, has encompassed a wide spectrum of

Soviet miners.

political views, which have now been exposed by the depth of the crisis in Soviet society.

DP is a reflection of this. Within its ranks are liberal free-marketeers, social democrats and revolutionary Marxists.

There is, moreover, a tension in DP between the need and possibility of reforming the CPSU and thus staying inside it and of forming a new party as part of the transition to a multi-party system.

Yuri Afanasyev, a leading proponent of _ socialdemocratic ideas within DP, has resigned from the CPSU.

He repeated the old Menshevik argument that Russia ‘was too immature for socialist revolution and has been deflected from its natural

course of development.

He has concluded that the CPSU is irreformable and that a new, distinctly different, party must be founded.

Others have argued the danger of a split comes from the Party leadership’s endless compromises rather than the formation of platforms or groups in the Party: therefore those responsible for slowing down the processes of renewal should be the ones to go.

A number of local party leaderships have been forced to resign but the procedures for electing Congress delegates are unclear.

So many will be elected on an undemocratic basis and the whole legitimacy of the Congress will be open tochallenge.

‘Yeltsin is confident that the

Draft Platform can be radically amended at the Congress if delegates are elected democratically. What his reaction will be when this does not

happen is open to question. The CPSU’s disintegration

is only just beginning, it will

not be settled at the 28th Con-

gress,

: . ;

| Annual

ions (20 issues) are £12

(individuals), £24 (institutions). Write to PO Box 1235, London N4 2UY (cheques, etc., Payable to Labour Briefing).

Address...

DEFENDING THE DEFENDANTS

The local election results may have pushed the events of March 31st out of people’s minds.

But the state has certainly not forgotten.

A special unit has been set up by the Crown Prosecution Service, the first of its kind, resourced by over one hundred police officers, to bring to trial alleged participants in the “Battle of Trafalgar”.

By Jane Connor Co-chair London Anti-Poll Tax Federation (personal capacity)

Not even the events on Broadwater Farm in 1985 elicited such a response!

This unit has already amassed over 90 hours. of film and video, 30,000 photographs, and is hoping to prosecute”’a further 100 people on top of the 341 already facing charges.

The offences alleged against those people already charged include attempted murder, affray, threatening behaviour, assault and

numerous other public order offences.

One of the biggest problems facing any defence campaign is the sheer number of defendants coupled with the fact that many of them until now had no links to the organised anti-Poll Tax movement,

The initial response from the All-Britain Federation leadership which sought to blame demonstrators, rather than the police, hasn't helped matters either.

However, prior to the initiative taken by the Federation officers a meeting was called by a number of antiPoll Tax groups to set up a defence campaign.

On May 3rd the Trafalgar Square Defendants’ Campaign was launched at a meeting at Conway Hall in Londen, attended by defendants, solicitors and antiPoll tax activists.

Campaign”

It was agreed that the campaign would:

sunconditionally support all those arrested

sbe run by and accountable to those arrested

be independent of all other organisations

sdemand the support of the whole anti-Poll Tax movement and other sympathetic organisations.

‘The meeting also agreed to seek out and contact all defendants, co-ordinate legal defence, publicise what happened at the demonstration from the point of view of those arrested, and call for donations and fund-raising for a bust fund for legal and welfare costs.

The campaign is producing a newsletter and is organising weekly nicetings in London. Any defendants and witnesses are urged to contact the campaign immediately.

It is important that the needs of defendants are put first and not pushed aside because of the differences within the anti-Poll Tax movement.

Hopefully both the Trafalgar Square Defendants’ Campaign (TSDC) and any campaign launched from May 12th can co-operate. It is also important that local campaigns, along thelines of the TSDC are organised out-

side Londen. Altho! Steve Nally

and Tommy Sheridan have

subsequently explained that they were misrepresented by

the media, a number of defendants have been worried about coming forward to the Federation.

Because the Federation leadership were on the defensive after Trafalgar Square they were slow off the

mark in organising proper, co-ordinated defence for

those people charged.

Despite claims to the contrary, not all the initial hearings were covered by Federation representatives, and many defendants were unable to even contact the Federation office.

Under pressure from solicitors handling the cases, from defendants, and from a realisation of the scale of the state’s operation, officers of the Federation have now called a meeting foredeféndantsywithesses and antiPoll Tax activists.

It will be on Saturday 12th May, at 10.30am at 365 Brixton Road, London SW9 (nearest tube Brixton).

The aim is to launch a national defence campaign

light the political and civil

liberties at stake and also support the defence of people not in touch or organised by the local defence campaigns that have been set

POLL TAX: Local Report

up. This initiative should be

supported and not counter-

posed to local defence cam-

paigns under the control of

defendants.

The national campaign

Thursday 10th May

Trafalgar Square Defendants’ Campaign Meetings for all defendants

will have to convince people of its political neutrality if it is.to win the confidence of both defendants and many activists in the anti-Poll Tax movement who want to support defence activities.

7.30pm at Haringey Unwaged Centre,

Thursday 17th May

“72 West Green Road, N15 (near Seven Sisters tube, Victoria Line and BR)

7.30pm at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, WC1 (near Holborn tube, Picadilly Line)

The TSDC can be contacted c/o Haldane Society of Lawyers, Room 205, Panther House, London WC1. Telephone mess to 07

TSDC.

Recommended solicitors Bindmans & Partners (071 278 8131) Siefert Sediey Williams (071 831 3030) Kapil Juj & Birnberg (071 403 3166) Trevor Hamlyn & Co (071 821 1199) Civil Rights UK (071 274 0100)

Fighting the class war in Barrow

Barrow’s battle against the Poll Tax really started at the Four women froma strong working class area of the town formed Women Against the Poll Tax.

By-‘Hyder Prodhan Barrow CLP

A previous attempt to kick the local Labour Party into action miserably failed when the GC heavily defeated a resolution calling on the Labour controlled Barrow Council to refuse to implement the Poll Tax.

The resolution also called on the CLP to help build a mass-campaigu of non-payment. Its defeat iifustrated the weakness of the left in the CLF.

WATPT were at great pains to ensure people they were not party political but that this time Margaret ‘Thatcher had gone too far! ‘Still some protest was better than none.

A public meeting held by

the group was attended by a broad range of local people.

There were activists, Labour Councillors (most reluctant to lead a fight against the Poil Tax), Communist Party members, and the general public terrified of what the Poll Tax means for ordinary working people.

In March WATPT became People Against the Poll Tax and organised a well attended rally through Barrow ending at the Town Hall.

The march was good humoured, despite a heavy police presence. A 15,000 signature petition against the Poll Tax was presented to the Mayor, later to be sent to Downing Street.

The message Barrow’s working and oppressed class, common to all other areas, wanted to hear was that Labour would take sides in the class war: the side of the class Labour claims to represent, the working class.

The applause from the crowd was for a clear socialist message,

Labour Councillors must have ananswer for those that can’t or won’t pay the Poll Tax.

The crowd warmly responded to the fact that over 1 million people haven’t paid in Scotland and the estimates that over 10 million won’t/can’t pay in England

- and Wales.

Ata PAPT meeting of over 100, which partially endorsed support for non-payment, theloudest cheers were for non-payment speakers.

Group

In the end the group, against the wishes of those who set it up, agreed to support all forms of opposition to the Poll Tax including non-payment.

The local newspapers report of this meeting signalled the beginnings of a local witch-hunt.

Tory Group Leader Ted Smith, said Barrow Labour Party and Labour Group should disassociate themselyes from me, as a Council candidate, for advocating non-payment.

He went on to say I should be disowned and withdrawn as an election candidate in the light of my refusal to obey. the law.

Dead right Ted: I won't, and don’t think that socialists should obey laws made by a ruting-class parliament, which passes laws to make the rich richer and the poor poorer!

The local Party, controlled by a politically bankrupt alliance of the ultra-soft left (Stalinist tendency) and the anti-socialist right wing, attempted to make me lie low and not say I was a Labour candidate and advocating non-payment together.

My attempt to include in my election address a commitment to a mass campaign of non-payment of the Poll Tax and a pledge for Labour to defend those can’t pay/won't pay people was defeated,

I was told it was contrary

to Party policy. Party

I was reliably informed regional office wanted me deselected immediately but that the “benevolent” local Party didn’t want a “witchhunt”?

T agreed I wouldn’t misrepresent local Party policy,

which I hadn't. And even if I wanted to fool working class people that the Labour Party was standing up for their interests they wouldn’t believe me.

PAPT has become more and more identified with non-payment while the initial leaders have become marginalised for not wanting to build a mass campaign and for refusing to encourage the working class to lead their own battle.

A highly successful lobby of the last full Council meeting before the bills was held, with an excellent intervention by hard left Councillor, Dave Mason, who said he wouldn't be paying the Poll Tax because he couldn’t afford to.

At a picket of hated right wing Tory MP Cecil Franks’ surgery the police were called, following an attempt to speak to him and two Labour Party members, Paul Clark and Les Burns, were arrested.

This was a clear strategy of attempting to isolate the

Both were later released without being

charged. Predictably local

Tories hauled about the local Labour Party for supporting extremists and law breakers.

Franks the MP referred to the protesters as scum. Good try Cecil, but it is you who is scum as far as the people of Barrow are concerned; a fact you'll discover when you lose the next election (if indeed Franks fights it).

Local Tories have already issued a letter condemning his comments that Barrow should have a Poll Tax of £194 in line with Government recommendations instead of £328, the actual

figure. Burning

Barrow’s campaign against the Poll Tax will march on relentlessly. We are planning a mass burning of Poll Tax bills and more public meetings.

We must work with and inside the unions and on the estates in working class communities. We must continue along with all those other campaigns to turn the Labour Party into a vehicle for class struggle socialist politics.