Labour Briefing no. 73

_ ~~ _Nurses in their thousands back

on picket lines or taking

_ work-to-grading: action; NUPE and COHSE claiming local concessions, which hospital managers promptly deny; Ministers torn between proclaiming their own generosity and putting the boot into the health unions: what the hell is going on?

That is the question on the lips of millions watching television coverage of the growing battle over nurses’ pay-

Like many nurses, they would have been under the impression that all this was sorted out last Spring, when Thatcher's cabinet announced an average 15% pay increase, linked to a new careers structure — “Clinical Grading”.

The unions had been demanding clinical grading for years, so that nurses would be paid for their experience and for the work they actually do, as well as their formal qualifications.

The grading definitions were agreed before April. What has still not been settled is the interpretation of these definitions and how to

_ implement and pay for the new structure. wamed that the Tories had given too little cash

“to Cover the full costs of clinical grading. They

- gald it would cost nearer to 20% than 15% of the pay bill (over £1 billion compared to the £803 -fnillion set aside).

In mid-October, Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke partly conceded this, announcing an extra £138 million to top up the kitty; but he insisted that this was the “full and final funding”, based on Regional Health Authority cost estimates.

_. The new £941 million total is therefore an

effective cash limit — forcing Health Authorities to restrict numbers they put on higher, better paid grades, for fear of overspending. However, the Regions had got it wrong — in a big way! RE

By John Lister London Health Emergency

Their estimates were based on downgrading tens of thousands of nurses, and left no cash margin to cover the costs if these nurses later won appeals and secured increases of £1,000-2,000 each.

The proposed new gradings have now sparked angry walkouts, resignations, and protests all over the country, with thousands of appeals already lodged.

Not only are the regradings insulting — they are often unworkable. Hertfordshire’s Leavesden Hospital was the first to be left paralysed when hundreds of downgraded nursing staff refused to work for lack of properly graded supervision. Management were forced to scrap their grading plans and start again.

So unworkable are the proposals that the RCN, which opposes any form of collective action to challenge the gradings, has warned its members that to “work to grading” (i.e. do just what you're paid for!) is tantamount to industrial action!

INSIDE:

©The local government debate

eCampaign for Socialism!

eSocialist Strategy for Europe

Spotlight on NALGO.

*After Dewsbury —

elsrael today

°El Salvador

Now, bully boys Clarke and Mellor have taken up the same line, telling management to take disciplinary action against nurses who work to their new management-assigned gradings. They have told managers not to alter gradings where any form of action is taken.

Even before the gradings were announced, Districts which stepped out of line by making More generous proposals were heavily pressurised by Regional Health Chiefs. In Wales, every single Health Authority had its gradings referred back.

Behind management’s hard line is the fear that if they make concessions they will run into a financial shortfall and face more closures and cuts.

They think it is easier to cheat the nurses than to fight for proper funding. They must be persuaded otherwise.

NUPE and COHSE have been balloting members, staging protests and all-out strikes, with emergency cover, and taking work-to-grading action, which has already forced concessions in several Districts.

Work-to-grading exposes the stupidity of management’s proposals and also helps unite nurses: those happy with their grades can help colleagues who have lost out to fight back — whilst also safeguarding the interests of patients. Nurses are in the front line of this fight; but everyone can help them win.

Contact your local hospital unions to show your support and find out what action they’re taking. Join the many local demonstrations, pickets, and protest lobbies, and raise the matter in your own trade union branch, community organisations, or Labour Party — and invite a speaker to come along.

BOUR- TAKE THE POWER!

is 3 8 g : é 8 z

Labour Brieting No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 2

With the House of Lords expected to decide any day now whether Viraj Mendis will be allowed to appeal against deportation, the evidence of the danger he would face in Sri Lanka is mounting.

By Evan Pritchard Manchester Withington CLP

—__

An independent public inquiry has reported that Viraj has a “well founded fear of persecution” if he is returned to Sri Lanka; and supports Viraj’s claim to be treated as a political refugee.

In October, Amnesty International placed the Sri Lankan regime's human rights record among the world’s ten worst.

Minister Timothy Renton made it clear on November ist that the Home Office intends to deport Viraj immediately if the Lords uphold the deportation order. Perhaps they are afraid that the new evidence, inadmissible to the Lords, would be heard in the European Court and accepted.

The Tory government is acting in clear breach of the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees. Viraj has commented:

“itis interesting to see Margaret Thatcher urging the Polish government to ‘set your people free’ and then to hear that the Home Office, having kept me prisoner for

Talk to every

tenant!

Over 200 people have attended public meetings held on the north and south of Parks Estate in Swindon.

—<—<—<$<_<$_$—$<—___—__—

By Martin Wicks Parks Labour Party

——

These were the first of a series of meetings organised by the Council against the Housing Bill.

The meeting was an eyeopener for anyone who doubts that people are prepared to fight. There was a great deal of anger and a determination to defend the roofs over our heads from the profiteers.

A Tenants Federation representative said thata recent meeting on another Council estate, Pinehurst, had been packed to overflowing.

The Federation has _produced window stickers:

ee SS SS (0N—awnee rer _>>—=-s———— Campaign round-up

No to death in Sri Lanka!

Dewsbury Rally

nearly two years in sanctuary, remains more in-) tent than ever on sending me) to my'death.”" + ere

The Report of the independent public inquiry, vital] reading for all socialists, can| be obtained from VMDC, c/o} North Hulme Centre, Jack-| ' son Crescent, Manchester| M15 5AL for £2.

Harassment of the Defence Campaign con-, tinues. VMDC activists Sonia Hughes and Adrian Levy! were violently arrested by 15 police officers while out) i shopping in Manchester City, Centre.

They were held in

ing not guilty to charges of, police assault and obstruc-, tion.

The Campaign is stepping, up activity in the face of the! increasing provocation as| the Tories inch closer to their’ goal. Please contact the Campaign to find out how

‘Standing up against racism in Dewsbury, October 29th

Standing up to racism ~

you can help — especially if On October 29th, action ‘We were shocked by the tac- Huddersfield Labour Party, Defence Campaign.

you live in Manchester—on, against racism in __ tics of Kirklees Labour Group, many NUT branches including When Bemie Grant said that 061 234 3168 or 061 226 Dewsbury started with a which anleashed a torrent of Kirklees, Bradford, and Leeds, facism should be fought 7592. | rally on the theme “No to abuse at us andstartedtolineup as well as NAS/UWT, wherever it raises its ugly head,

Future events are: S ° 1

*Immediate, seven day,! Racial Segregation; Yes to to call on the police to ban it. ‘Association, many left groups, u od hour vig outside the: Eewcertom: Against and the four black MPs. urged the Tottenham MP to stay church assoon asthe House; | Racism!” In the. end, the Home. *Way, but he refused. To fight of Lorde rejects Viraj's ap; The Kirkless Black By Atma Singh Secretary banned the march a sgainst racism, he said, did not eh | Workers Group, whichcalled = Chair, Kirklees fon deja: bet ga eal he

«December 1st: mass| | the rally, expected universal e held. Instead, we held the rally. picket ofthe Home Office. |./ support, especially from the Black Workers We wanted to use Kirklees

“December ist-19th: na-| !#bour movement. Group Council premises but we were

speakil with However, we were given a offered small room which

areal ers ee US| hostile reception by Kirklees Sea Edd ant aces Gan tea

movement. i Council Labour Group and = They threatened Kirklees whose names and ad-

“December 20th: mass local Labour MP Ann Taylor. employees and organisations dresses had to be given to

Se Chrch tReet On cores Ce Jamil with withdrawal of funding if Kirklees in advance and who

to commemorate two sere Akhtar, the first black Council- they backed the march. would have to produce ideny Jor in Kirklees, argued that Pabour Councillor George _ tification cards. We declined.

paign’

*We will march. We intend to apply for a march to be held in the Spring.

We need national political support, especially from the NUT and the Labour Party.

in sanctuary. : Adaierasiniciination fom, | _Rakloce,sbould contions the speight, Chair of North Our outdoor rally was at- “The NUT should encourage MDC |. fight. Not one member of the Kirklees Community Relations tended by about 500 people, in- other teaching unions to make Labour Group seconded him. Council, organised a white cluding Councillors and _ thisakey campaign, and should ‘After this complete surrender z ae eevee 3 tocall forthe march tobe teachers from all over the organise @ conference: Noto

\ the Kirklees Black Workers banned Jack Brookes, Chairof country, and the Derek Racial Segregation; Yes to

Group started to challenge _ jhe KirkleesLabour Group, said , 5 ; — * ar’ p,said. “Buchanan Defence Campaign, Education Against Racism. peneae apc regen we were “inciting racial Kirklees Asian Women's Wel ‘Every Labour MP should oe hatred”: fare Association, Batley Asian support this campaign, every of the Council and also decided. ~~ However, our march Parents ‘Association, Viraj CLP should discuss the issue to organise a march in received support from NUT, Mendis Defence Campaign, and build unity between the Dewsbury on October 29th. Labour Party Black Sections, and the Broadwater Farm Labour Party and black people.

Disability Alliance

Poverty and Disability — zat: Double Discrimination

oe Paces nee te acest ‘Thousands of people with his working ifethan someone get_ in 1984 because an EEC directive single unified benefit forall people Prop . isabilities are forced to. tsinvalidity tenefit, Over half of forced the government to abolish with disabilities who are unable to meetings, in which all the disab TESDA clamants are forced to the discriminatory “Household _ work, regardless of their contributenants in a particular street live in poverty because Of cjaim means-tested benefits to Duties Test” for married women. tions record.

wouldbe invitedtothehouse the shamefully low level of — make up their basic income. But the Disablility Alliance A spokesperson said:

of a well-known tenant, © social security benefits, ac- Disabled women face a double — Report shows that the vast majority “The cost of such a benefit discrimination: many are excluded of the 240,000 women who were wouled be just £700m per year,

ny Hae sevaiaigtel LEU RA t dacrimindiy benehitbecasethey denied benefit by the “Houschold compared to tax cuts of over cheat dil Published last week by the jaye paid the married women’s Duties Test” are also excluded by £6,000m given oot in the 1988 The onl eee Canen Disability Alliance. reduced rate contributions. the “80% test”. budget alone. It is clear that the ry WY. ° Severe Disablement Allowance Others lose out as their wages The “80% test” involves medical resources aré there — what is ballot success is to organise (SpA) is aimed at people who are from part-time work are toolow for examinations which. are ‘often _ needed is the political will.” al al |. harsh national insurance ontribu- -ause they have nworking resulting assessments are incom- Hard to Claim. Impos: live This is especially crucial tions test for invalidity benefit. recently due to childcare respon- pebenatble both to claimants and 0”, is published by the Disablility given the fact that there is no SDA is paid at just £24.75 per sibilities. ‘ advisers. Alliance, price £3.00 post free. 48 limit to the number of ballots! | week for a single person, even ‘The report shows that SDA isex- There are also intolerable delays ‘AS pages. ISBN 9-946336-34 2 Only an understanding | though, as an “income main- tremely difficult to claim. People caused by the ‘80% test’, leaving Available from the Disablility Alamongst all tenants of what ‘fance” benefit, it is meant to claiming after the age of 20havenot claimants waiting months for a __liance, 25 Denmark St, London the Bill me ill ensure | replace lost earnings. only toprove that they areincapable benefit to meet basic living costs. WC2H 8NI (please allow 28°days means will ory ‘As the report shows, someone ef work, but also that they are “80% In the report, the Disability Al- for delivery). thatwe are notworn down by: | claiming SDA from the age of 18is disabled’. i fianwe ealls for the abolition of the “*Taken from a. DisabilityeAles profiteers’ repeated sallies. | entitled to £68,736 less over her or This “80% test” was introduced ‘80% test” and the introduction of a liance Press Release: a

“I'm voting to stay with the Council — Developers Out!” On Pinehurst, 90% of houses so far approached have put them up in their windows.

Given the rigged voting system in ballots on estate |

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 3

Editorial

Govan: no confidence in Kinnock

The working class voters of Govan have sent a powerful message to Westminster — a message for Thatcher (and her proconsul in Scotland, Malcolm Rifkind), but equally a message for Neil Kinnock (and his proconsul, Donald Dewar).

The Tory anti-working class blitzkrieg has had a peculiar ferocity north of the border. As a result, Tory support has shrivelled and Scotland is now ruled from Whitehall like a foreign colony.

But Labour is now paying the price for its electoral success — and its failure to act on the mandate granted by that success.

Feeble excuses for the Govan debacle have been the order of the day. Feeblest of all has been the of the Labour candidate, who minders from the Parliamentary Labour Party and Walworth Road: an unsubtle spectacle hardly likely to inspire confidence in candidate or Party.

Nor should the swingometer-busting SNP victory be dismissed as a by-election freak or passive

protest vote. On. least,the SNP now stands to the weapons, the environment, employment, and of

__-o2urse the Poll Tax.

Jim Sillars was listed on the ballot paper as “SNP — No Poll Tax" and his election re-enforces

_.-.allthe arguments for a mass campaign of

resistance to the Tax, preferably led by the Labour

; In Govan, the urgent necessity to do something

about the reactionary (and massively unpopular) Tax was complemented by a profound sense of

BRIEFING

LABOUR — TAKE THE POWER:

national grievance. The SNP responded to both issues — and linked them, happily. Labour responded to neither — and insisted on keeping them separate.

In Scotland, even more than elsewhere, passive law-abiding parliamentarism is an irrelevance. Labour's supporters will judge our future as a government by our record as an opposition. Front Bench inertia is simply unacceptable — and the Govan voters have now said so, loud and clear.

Govan will have been salutary if it galvanises at least some elements in the Party into action, and if it reveals to doubters in the Party’s centre the political abyss opening up under Kinnock’s feet.

Mean Lawson and the

Means Test

Nigel Lawson's infamous on/off the record briefing of lobby correspondents exposed once again the determination of the Tory government to dismantie the welfare state.

Those with long memories will remember that it was the struggle against the defeated means-tested benefits of the 1930s which led to the universal “as of right” benefits of the 1940s and

beyond. to the last, Lawson claims he is

directing resources to the most needy. Yet he knows that the take-up on means-tested benefits is low. He also knows that reliance on means-tested benefits carries the stigma of pauperism — and that many people are thereby deterred from claiming them.

A previous generation won the struggle for universal benefits as of right. Now the labour movement must defend that gain. To do so, it must

argue unashamedly for the egalitarian, socialist principles underlying it. King’s Cross:

capitalist management in action

Ayear after the lethal King’s Cross fire, London Underground bosses Bright and Ridley resigned with joint payments totalling £300,000. They will be able to wash the blood off their hands in comfort.

Filthy, overcrowded, overpriced, chaotic, dangerous, London’s public transport is a monument to “efficient capitalist management”.

The removal of London's transport from democratic GLC control opened the door to management's “modernisation” and “efficiency” drive. Loss of staff, steadily rising fares (twice the rate of inflation), declining quality of service, and a terrifying collapse in safety standards followed.

What the capitalists mean by “efficient management” can be seen in King’s Cross, the nurses’ grading dispute, and the general breakdown in public services — all precipitated by loss of funding, accompanied inevitably by managerial dictatorship.

For socialists, efficiency has an entirely different meaning. It has to do with planning to meet social needs, with allocating resources according to that plan, with democratic control.

Services people need can only be provided in the end by the much-maligned (and grotesquely exploited) producers. Under socialism, the producers will be collectively in charge of their work and committed to it. And they will have access to all the resources needed to meet needs democratically identified with consumers — who are, after all, producers in their own right.

Economic Notebook

Kohl in Moscow Doing “Business” with Gorbachev

Tee eee

Asusual, the British media picked up the sensation that wasn’t: West German Chancellor Kohl’s press conference “revelation” that his Soviet hosts would release all remaining political prisoners by the end of 1988.

By Ginter Minnerup

On closer inspection, it transpired that Foreign Minister Shevardnadze had said as much four weeks earlier.

The US State Department — never slow to play down the im-

of West German contacts with Moscow — formally confirmed this.

‘So was the Chancellor’ s visit toGorbachev a failure? Certainly, Kohl and his huge party (which included Foreign and Defence Ministers as well as scores of heavyweight in- “dustrialists and bankers) returned ‘with few tangible

results.

‘The sale of a West German nuclear reactor to the Soviet Union, a remarkable first, had been well advertised beforehand, as had the other ‘agreements on economic and technological co-operation.

These admittedly significant developments have not lifted West German-Soviet relations onto a new stage: the FRG has been Moscow's most important Westem trade partner for a long time.

On military matters, Defence Secretary Rupert Scholz was careful not tocommit himself to anything beyond Bonn’s wellknown NATO positions, and Gorbachev went to some lengths to scupper any speculation conceming possible deals over the “German Questions”.

But then these visits rarely produce unexpected results. Little cold be expected from a setpiece encounter between the leaders of two states whose mutual relations are so fraught with difficulty and viewed with so much suspicion both Bast and West.

‘The real significance of the visit was symbolic: After all, Kohl had hardly been Gorbachev's favourite Western politician, especially after Kohl's well-publicised comparison of the Soviet General Secretary with Josef Goebbels.

The famous handshake mainly symbolised an end to a period of frosty relations and the beginning of, in Thatcherite parlance, serious “business” between the Christian Democrats in Bonn and the Gorbachev leadership.

It was agreed that by May 1989, when the General Secretary makes his return visit to Bonn, a comprehensive treaty on long-term co-operation between the FRG and the USSR would be ready.

Kohl’s visit also has to be seen against the background of an amazing sea-change in West German public attitudes towards the Soviet Union.

In this culturally most Americanised and, until recently, most uncritically proAmerican of West European countries, both Gorbachev per-

sonally and “the Russians” in

general are today more popular

than President Reagan and “the Americans”.

Interest in the Soviet reforms

is huge: Gorbachev's book on Perestroika topped the bestsellers’ list for months. Most newsagents do good business with a daily German edition of Pravda.

This interest is by no means * 4 The Soviet market: has Kohl's visit increased FRG access?

confined to the left. Barlier this year, retuming from his own visit to Moscow,the recently deceased leader of the right wing CSU, Franz-Josef Strauss, declared that the Soviet Union could no longer be considered an aggressive or hostile power. Rapprochement and longtermco-operation with Moscow is in the air. This will become highly significant as public differences with Washington over economic and military issues deepen and the unfolding of perestroikaincreases economic opportunities for a stagnant West German economy. Already, Foreign Minister Genscher has been flying kites about a West European “Mar-

shall Plan” for the Soviet economy, and the Bonn Goverment has made no bones about its desire to scrap COCOM restrictions on high technology exports to the Soviet bloc.

‘The real “business” between Bonn and Moscow is yet to be done, and on both sides there remain serious obstacles, not

least bitter resistance from Kohl's NATO allies.

As in Britain, however, it is the right which appears to have taken the initiative in responding to Gorbachev's new interest in Westem Europe, with the

Labour Party and SPD leader-

\ship trailing behind, spouting abstract generalities about detente and disarmament.

Foreign policy has never been the left’s strong suit, but it should dawn upon even the Kin-

\nocks and Vogels of this world

\that the familiar frontiers of the post-war settlement in Europe are beginning to shift.

| Unless it is happy to leave the

(restructuring of Europe’s relations with the “superpowers” to.

\Kohl, Thatcher, and their travelling companions from the worlds of banking, industry,

|and warfare, the left had better

| start talking about its own | response to Gorbachev's over-

‘tures.

i ED

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-Decomber éth Page 4

Trade Union Briefing

With 750,000 members, NALGO, the white collar public service union, has a reputation for radical social policies and for militancy in inner-city areas. ,

But the political complexion of its leadership, and their behaviour on the crunch issues of privatisation and local jobs and services, is too little known.

Behind a smokescreen of anti-Tory rhetoric, NALGO’s Executive is dominated by right wingers and a small group of semi-Kinnockite centrists.

By BRIAN STATHAM

Leading full time officers, General Secretary John Daly and his deputy Alan Jinkinson, overwhelmingly agree with the Executive majority that on the central issues it is impossible to fight Thatcher.

With the Tories on the offensive, the NALGO leadership is playing dead — delivering members in Brent, ‘Westminster, and Bradford up to redundancy and giving up on electricity and water privatisation. z

But instead of openly supporting New Realism, key offi-

cals meticulously avoid trigger-"

ing the “industrial action strategy” which the union adopted in 1982.

Unorganised

‘The leadership's strategy is to keep up the numbers by attracting previously unorganised workers with cheap holidays, mortagages, car insurance, and other fringe benefits. Particular targets are retired members and police civilians.

NALGO is the key union in the two industries now facing privatisation — water and electricity. In neither is it

ing for serious resistance, and indeed it is probably too late todo so.

In water, a publicity campaign is being combined with legal action which cannot be successful in the long term.

In electricity, national officer. Mike Jeram is concentrating on share ownership schemes for employees — or compensating members forprivatisation witha few bobs’ gambling on the Stock exchange.

Decline

NALGO has some 70,000 health workers, down 20,000 over the past five years..The decline is a consequence of the union’s abysmal failure during the 1982 health strike, and its failure to launch any serious action in that sector since.

National health officer Ada Maddocks waseven awarded an OBE soon after the NHS dispute — for services rendered !

During the 83 and 87 elections the union ran huge million-pound publicity campaigns (Put People First; Make. People Matter). NALGO spends over

£2m each year on publicity, which time and again is a substitute for real organisation, rather than a complement to it.

Given the large number of left wing NALGO members, why is there so little challenge to this strategy of inaction?

Inactive

Successive bitter struggles in local government have “used up” layer after layer of branch activists, many of whom have now become inactive.

Many of the young, inexperienced, new leaderships in big metropolitan branches are prey tothe leadership’s strategy of letting them go into battle alone.

The virtual autonomy of big city branches has often led the left to retreat into local bastions, paying scant attention to organising at District and national level.

‘The sectarian attitude of the SWP and Militant has also contributed. to the failure to construct a viable national Broad Left.

Appendage

A key trend on the NALGO left has been the Morning Star, which currently has three NEC members — Ivan Beavis, John McFadden, and Judy Cotter. ‘The Morning Star acts as a left appendage to the bureaucracy, keeping its places by doing little jobs for the right wing.

John McFadden has, by general obedience to the right, maintained a seat on the influential General Purposes Committee. He is also on NALGO’s intemational committee, where the Morning Star tends to get its way — hence NALGO’s scandalous attacks on the Moses Mayekiso cam-

pagan.

‘The Black Members Group and the Lesbian and Gay Members group, both with semi-official status within-the union, have often made up for the lack of left organisation in NALGO.

Retreat

But the Executive and Conference have recently rejected report which would have given them full status. If the driftto the right continues, the self-organised groups will soon face further attack.

It would be naive to attribute NALGO’s retreat simply to right wing domination. There has been a retreat in the consciousness of many former militant activists after the many defeats — particularly over ratecapping and the abolition of the metropolitan counties.

Thus, while the NALGO leadership may be planning nothing but protest action over the Poll Tax; NALGO Conference, let alone amongst the mass of the membership, would show scant support for industrial action on this issue.

By engineering defeat after defeat, NALGO’s leadership has created scepticism about militant, action..and. a widespread “heads down” attitude..

‘There isa positive side to this gloomy picture, This year’s bal-

NALGO rank and file show willingness to fight — but where are the leaders?

ot on creating a political fund was overwhelmingly carried, after a huge “yes” campaign by the Executive.

Over the past three years, ballots on industrial action over pay among 500,000 local government workers have been defeated by only small margins,

reflecting growing discontent among the low-paid — a third of NALGO's membership. Many local members will fight back —on cuts, redundancies, and on questions like sexual harassment. These are the reserves of militancy which the left has to tap to fight the

7 ieee

move to the right.

‘The crucial battleground in NALGO is the mass membership in local government, where the union must find an answer to the Tories’ plans for a municipal “year zero”.

‘One even bigger question looms. Following the trend

Employment Training

ET begins to bite

Don't worry, this isn’t a recruitment drive for tankies.

But it Is perhaps even more surprising to find in Briefing a detence of a Manpower Services Commission scheme — the Community Programme, which is being phased out with the introduction of Employment Training.

———— By Toni Cardinali Coventry SW CLP

——

John Prescott (remember him?) used to tell us that government schemes exist to massage the unemployment figures, Thisis clearly a feeble and nonsensical analysis.

It is feeble because it ignores all the other reasons; it is nonsensical, because Norman Fowler can think of lots of cheaper and easier ways of fiddling the figures (such as not including all those unemployed people who haven't got a job).

ES

Government schemes are not about electoralism. We all know the Tories are quite capable of winning elections despite ridiculously high unemployment figures, and the amount of government spending involved is far higher than that required for other dead-cert vote-winners, such as funding the nurses’ pay award.

No, these schemes are about rescuing British capitalism. They exist to produce a more flexible, lower-paid, non-tnionised workforce.

The replacement of the Community Programme with Employment Training is another huge leap towards turning Britain into a Third World economy (was it Napoleon who said, “Britain is a nation of sweatshopkeepers?).

Contrasts

The CP was ‘work that pays the going rate” (although in practice this meant what the Tories hoped the rate was going to become).

ET is based firmly on the concept of “work-for-yourdole”.

ET “trainees” (if that’s the right word) receive their benefits plus £10, which in most cases will not even cover lunch and travelling expenses. They are even paid by Giro.

The CP was mainly parttime; ET is entirely full-time, excluding many women, and making it very difficult for trainees to look for a decent job.

CP wages could be “topped up”. Under ET, any top-up would simply be removed from your benefits.

The CP provided work that was socially useful, usually in the voluntary sector, and therefore generally enjoy able and fulfilling. Indeed, a side-effect of ending the CP has been a severe staffing crisis in the voluntary sector.

ET, however, is aimed Specifically at the. private sector, with companies taking on trainees not be-

towards mega-unions, NALGOand NUPE leaders have decided to merge in three or four years’ time.

Will NALGO enter this merger as a force pulling to the right, or a force for radical change? The left must get its act together if it is to be the latter.

cause they want trainees but for profit on a so-much-per-

The CP.was voluntary. ET, despite government claims to the contrary, is not. A friend of mine went for a Restart interview recently. After being keptwaiting for over an hour, they said they didn’t

jhave time to see him and that ‘he should attend an ET inter-

view instead. Compulsory

The woman behind the desk went out of her way to stress that it was not compulsory, but when he asked what would happen if he didn't go,she said he would have his dole stopped!

"If the only thing stopping you getting a job is training,” the ads say, “the only thing stopping you training is you.”

The truth is that the only thing stopping people getting jobs is mass unemployment,and the only thing stopping people getting training is stingy bosses. Whatever happened to “appren- \ticeships?

“= ses are working to

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 5

Trade Union Briefing

RTH-WE

We are angry!

Nurses in the North Westare giving the lieto Kenneth Clarke’s claim that the majority of nurses are satisfied with their pay grades.

Three hundred staff at Springfield psychiatric hospital in North Manchester, members of NUPE and COHSE, have been on unofficial indefinite strike since November 1st.

At Prestwich psychiatric hospital in Salford over 800 members of NUPE and COHSE are now on official indefinite strike — whilst maintaining emergency cover, worked out by the nurses themselves.

These are the most advanced actions; but nurses throughout the region are also involved in various forms of industrial action.

Psychiatric nurses at the Manchester Royal Infirmary staged a two hour stoppage on November 11th, whilst nurses at Trafford General, Stretford Memorial and Altrincham General have organised a _.-24 hour strike.

The strike at Trafford clearly shows the nurses’ _ willingness to fight: it is the first protest action in the area,

InSouth Manchester nurand

have threatened an all-out

ined

organising a ballot on 4 sible strike action to follow up the work-to-grade.

Stockport nurses are working to grade. Nurses from Birch Hill Hospital in Rochdale organised a protest demonstration on November 12th.

Striking North Manchester nurses organised a demonstration in

Manchester on November 17th. NUPE has also called a_march and rally (with NUPE Deputy General Secretary Tom Sawyer) on November 22nd_ in Manchester.

In a ballot of over 400 COHSE nurses at Warrington General Hospital only four nurses failed to support a motion to strike. Nurses at the other Warrington hospitals — Winwick (the largest hospital in England) and Newchurch — are likely to follow suit.

By Geoff Ryan Central Manchester Hospitals branch NUPE

AtWest Cumbria Hospital in Workington, eight nurses were sent home for working to grade on November 15th.

The following day NUPE and .

COHSE nurses struck for 24 hours.

However, in many of these disputes, the nurses have been left to organise action for themselves. Contrary to Kenneth Clarke’s assertions,

tried to hold back nurses wanting to fight.

For example, neither NUPE nor COHSE have given official backing to the Springfield hospital strike. At Prestwich hospital, 600 COHSE members voted (by 57% to 42%) to join NUPE members on strike despite the opposition of COHSE stewards.

At Manchester Royal Infirmary COHSE members voted to support a two hour

UP

strike by psychiatric nurses. But COHSE stewards changed their mind and refused to give support. They attacked the strike as “illegal”; refused to support the picket line, even during their lunch break; and made it much easier for management to victimise individuals.

Agreement

The NUPE Branch Secretary also refused to support the strike, though he did agree to tolerate it — as long as there was no attempt to spread the strike beyond psychiatric nurses!

Some 30 nurses, including COHSE members, joined the two hour stoppage, supported on the picket line by another 20 or so on lunch breaks or days off. That makes twice the number out supporting the strike as voted for it — despite the sabotage of COHSE and NUPE officials and stewards.

This situation is mirrored throughout the country. New Realist leaderships are seared of organising the slightest opposition; whereas the membership wants to fight, believes it can win, and is ine dustrial action when balloted.

Thousands of nurses who have never been involved in industrial action before are today demanding and joining action against their Grading.

The task now is to begin organising that anger inside the hospitals to pressure the NUPE and COHSE leaderships to call a ballot for a national strike. Without national action the militancy and willingness to fight of nurses will once again be squandered by the union leaderships,

Boiling up and

bubbling ov

By JOHN LISTER

It takes a special talent to , hand out a sizeable £940m lin pay increases yet still rekindle angfy and

militant opposition from a normally docile workforce.

Kenneth Clarke and his —

merry band of NHS chiefs have managed it.

Thousands of nurses across the country are taking forms of action varying from threatened mass resignations to indefinite strikes.

Many nurses are simply causing chaos and making their

| point by working to grade. This means sticking strictly to the tasks laid down for the new gtades to which they have just been assigned.

Duties which used to be covered, but for which they are not being paid under the new grading structures, are refused.

Management bleat that this is

“industrial action”, but in most cases they set the grades, hoping that nursing staff would simply extra work without pay.

Instead, there has been a revival of the nurse militancy from February and March this

year.

Indefinite strikes have been relatively few — principally at the Springfield and Prestwich hospitals in Manchester, and NUPE members staged a threeday strike at. Wandsworth's St George’s Hospital. Each of these actions left emergency cover.

Token strikes of from two to 2A hours have been widespread, including Birmingham’s All

SOLIDARITY NETWORK CONFERENCE

How can workers take on the Tories?

By ALAN THORNETT

The Solidarity Network held a successful second Annual Conference in

tivists in Support Groups,

solidarity campaigns, and trade unions.

There were delegates from

eight Support Groups, eight

Trades Councils, and from four

ocal Labour Parties. Women

Women Against Pit

were also present. Tony Richardson, TGWU shop steward from Austin

LAL LED ARAL AAAS A EASA S

meetings with strikers: for example in Deal, with rank and file seafarers, and in Leeds with a delegation from the Vickers strikers. Also noted was the development of joint work with the Chestfield Socialist Conference, for example the joint rally held in London.

The lastest round of Tory amongst many other things, an almost impossibly high 70% vote for a strike vote in a postal ballot.

The major problem has been that the TUC and almost all of the trade union leaders refuse to break the law. The government uses that refusal as an invitation to bring more laws in. The seafarers’ leaders had briefly looked to break the law and spread the strike — but had stopped short of providing a lead for the movement.

Joyce Bently, representing the striking Dover seafarers, talked of the difficulties and jolation now facing the

APAADTA EER 4

strikers, despite the support how difficult it was to see a way forward.

Dave Chappel, 2 UCW branch officer from Bridgewater, reported on the postal workers strike and developments since. He was, he said, more optimistic than Joyce. The postal workers had been sold out, but they had shown their strength and were ready for more.

A speaker from the Bradford Labour Group gave an account of the situation on Bradford City Council. Mike Grindley, trade unionists, preparing for the GCHQ day of action, sent 2 message of support.

Two striking COHSE nurses from Manchester, Angela Clarkin and Caren Reissmann, reported on the escalating strug- ' gle against regrading imposed on the nurses by the gover ment.

Terry French sent a message

omen eae

on behalf of the Justice for Mineworkers. Campaign — now hamstrung after the poe aS 's last quarterly meetvoted overwhelmingly that the Socasiary dogehdustigs:Tho Secretary was refusing.

The Conference elected a new, expanded Steering Committee, with Janet Seymour (from the Silentnight dispute) as chair, John Lang, a rank and file leader from the Wapping dispute, as convenor, anda team to

produce an improved, printed,

‘The Conference agreed to continue developing the joint work between the Solidarity Network and the Chesterfield Socialist Conference, particularly with Chesterfield’s Trade Union Policy Group.

‘The conference also decided , tocall on Chesterfield tocall for a Chesterfield Trade Union Conference in a year’s time to organise a discussion on the way forward for socialists iin the unions.

LATA A LA ASA,

, Saints’ Hospital, where 89%

voted for a 24-hour strike, and several large psychiatric hospitals—Claybury, Maudsley, and Normansfield.

Action has also been seen in London: including at Hackney, Charing Cross, the London, the West Middlesex, and by 650 NUPE nurses in Haringey.

Elsewhere, work-to-grading, °

sometimes coupled with an

volved in action.

Work-to-grading has affected three hospitals in Warwickshire, three in Coventry and two in Rugby as well as Leicester, where management ‘were among the first to threaten disciplinary action against 140 NUPE members.

In Yorkshire, a 95% vote by Wakefield COHSE members backed work-to-grading action at Pinderfields, Clayton, Fieldhead, and Stanley Royd hospitals; nurses in Bradford, Hull and Rotherham were also taking action.

All 19 Health Districts in the North West have been hit by industrial action, and in Burley it produced quick results when management agreed to reconsider 800 gradings after the Health Authority was beseiged by 1,000 angry nurses.

In Blackbur the DHA was lobbied by over 150 nurses. In Liverpool, management at Sefton General Hospital agreed to review grades, while nurses at Alderhey hospital began workto-grading.

Hospitals in North and South Tyneside districts and North Tees have been affected by has also boiled over in the leafy south east, with working-to-

' grade in Hampshire, Suffolk

and East Surrey.

At Churchill House, Bracknell, COHSE action forced management to agree to review

8.

The Leavesden Hospital work-to-grading, along with the headline-grabbing action at Birmingham Children’s Hospital, came in for the first blast of witch-hunting, but also set the pace for much of this latest round of action.

However, early management concessions were apparently withdrawn, possibly under regional pressure. In the same region, management of the Horton psychiatric hospital in Epsom confronted by a COHSE work-to-grade and an overtime ban conceded increased grades for staff, whilst attempting to deny any concessions took place.

The action is still boiling up and bubbling over as Briefing goes to press. In the absence of a spectacular collapse by union leaders or an (unlikely) swift capital action by Kenneth Clarke, the battle seems set to tumble on for weeks.

Time’ to get out, make those links, and build support!

Stop press: We have just heard that NUPE London Division has called a London Day of Action for November 28th; and COHSE has called a national Day of Action with a lobby of Parliament for December 6th.

London Health Emergency has produced a leaflet on’ the regrading issue, arguing for a trade union response. Copies can be obtained for minimal cost from London Health Emergency, 335 Grays Inn Road, London WC1, 01-833 3020.

Among those worst affected:

-Auxilliary nurses, often with many years’ experience, who frequently work unsupervised, but have mostly been dumped into the lowest grade “A”;

Enrolled nurses, often left in charge of wards, yet denied the appropriate grade; +Midwives, who find themselves actually penalised for their additional training; +Ward sisters, arbitrarily excluded from higher grades; Night staff, systematically downgraded compared to equivalents on days.

Most nurses see that the grading must be put right now, or they will be wrong for years to come. It’s no use just rushing to the appeals procedure, which could drag on for years, and deliver nothing.

By opposing collective work-to-grading policies, the RCN is effectively arguing (like management!) that nurses should do extra work for nothing. No wonder they are losing members hand over fist to the unions!

2 3 g 9 3 3 a g & §

PHOTO:Andrew Wiard (Report)

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 6

Labour Party

A modern history of the Labour Party

The fight against “revisionism”

Hugh Gaitskell was elected °

Labour Leader in 1955 by the right-wing majority of Labour MPs.

The left of the Labour Party was then organised around Tribune, edited by Michael Foot, led by Ancurin Bevan.

In 1957, Bevan surrendered, making his infamous “naked into the conference chamber”

By PAUL LAWSON

speech defending British .

nuclear weapons.

Labour went into the 1959 General Election with a united leadership (Gaitskell and Bevan). Only occasionally would Bevan signal any differences with the dominant

CND: although it was at its largest in the early 60s, the Campaign still motivated mass actions in the 70s and 80s.

right wing.

Despite Labour's unity, the Conservatives won. Tory Prime Minister Harold MacMillan cleverly exploited growing working class prosperity with his claim, “you've never had it 80 good”.

Labour had now been out of power since 1951 and had lost three general elections in a row.

Gaitskell and his “revisionist” co-thinkers like Crosland and Douglas Jay began to wonder — like Kinnock and his co-thinkers today herently unpopular and whether mas affluence necessitated a move to the right.

Anthony Crosland, in his book The Future of Socialism argued that the mixed economy and welfare state had “civilised” capitalism, which was here to stay.

At the 1959 Labour Conference, Gaitskell argued that Labour was being kept out of power by “fundamental social forces” — growing working class affluence — to which it must adapt.

He proposed ditching Clause Four, which committed the Party to common ownership of the means of production. The response in the Party was immediate, and particularly in the unions — with the TGWU being adamant against any revision of Clause Four.

Throughout 1960 the battle over Clause Four raged. Gradually, bitterly, Gaitskell came to see that he could not win, or rather that if he pressed the issue and lost, his position as Leader would become untenable.

Eventually, the Gaitskellite

Labour Party Conference: still the scene of left victories — and a right wing backlash

right compromised, leaving the consitution intact, but drawing up a statement of “Aims and Values” which “clarified” the modern meaning of Clause Four. Sound familiar?

Now another challenge from the left confronted Gaitskell. ‘The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, founded in 1957, grew rapidly in the Labour Party and trade unions.

In February 1960 the Tory government decided to abandon rthe Blue Streak rocket which was becoming too expensive — leaving Britain without a credible independent nuclear delivery system.

The US to supply its Skybolt missile, but did Britain really need an independent deterrent? Gaitskell hesitated; then came down firmly in favour.

Govan verdict

Still time for Labour to

Jim Sillars, newlyelected SNP MP for

Govan, drew the right,

lessons from his byelection victory.

“Above all,” he said, “it was a crushing defeat for the Tory government and its imposition on Scotland of policies for which it has no mandate.”

He went on to list the Poll Tax, privatisation of medicine, testing in primary schools, the nuclearisation of a soon-to-be privatised electricity industry — all overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of Govan.

Nobody should be misled into seeing Sillar's victory as a manifestation of reactionary chauvinist nationalism. On the contrary, there was agreement between Sillars

usin rer

By Tony Southall Glasgow Pollok CLP

and Labour's Bob Gillespie on a wide range of social issues.

Long gone are the days when the SNP could be dismissed as Tartan Tories. Only this change in SNP politics can explain how thousands of lifetime Labour voters found it so easy to crossover to the SNP, a crossover they saw as the only way of expressing their anti-Tory position. They have lost faith in Labour's ability to fight back.

Sillars was also right to claim that the result was a comment on the performance to date of Scotland's

Labour MPs in defending their people against Tory assaults. ‘

The impotence of the feeble fifty had been tumbled, Sillars said, and people were turning to a party whose solely Scottish allegiance promised a real fight against the Tories.

Asserted

In this Sillars agreed with lan Smart, a member of Labour's Scottish Executive and a leader of Scottish Labour Action, who asserted on a post-Govan television programme that the election had been lost at the Special Scottish Party Conference, coincidentally held in Govan Town Hall in September.

There, proposals for or-

esw yews

ganising a mass campaign for non-payment of the Poll Tax, supported by a majority of CLPs, were defeated.

It is only necessary to imagine a different Labour campaign, one that i non-payment of the Poll Tax and immediate moves towards setting up a Scottish Constitutional Convention, led by the 50 Labour MPs, to see that Labour could have won in Govan.

Unfortunately, that option was foreclosed in advance by September’s Govan decision and by the Scottish Party's continual pussyfooting around a commitment even to the modest calls issued by the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly.

On the Saturday after Govan, the Scottish Execu-

At that year's Scarborough Conference, the unilateralist tide was too strong. Gaitskell, in his leaders’ speech, refused to accept the motion carried by

Conference, and vowed to

<i pnd deg

organised the “Campaign for Democratic Socialism” — the LCC of its day —to work in the constituencies and the unions against CND and the left and thus ensure that Gaitskell would defeat unilateralism at the 1961 Conference.

Many CDS leaders later became leading figures in the SDP (Bill Rogers, for example). In the absence of effective’ left wing organisation, CDS. succeeded. In 1961, unilateralism

‘Anew issue now divided the Party — the Common Market.

tive set up an inquiry into the defeat and made a commitment to a constitutional convention, but too late.

Neil Kinnock has also set up an inquiry into Govan. Itis likely that this inquiry will avoid difficult issues by laying responsibility for the Govan defeat on the candidate.

Ititdoes this, it will be burying its head in the sand. If the swing in Govan were repeated nation-wide, the SNP would capture every one of Scotiand’s 72 seats.

Tide

The only way in which local CLPs can begin to reverse this tide is by immediate steps to take the leadership of a campaign for

Gaitskell at first was unsure because of his loyalty to the Com=. monwealth. Finally, he and the revisionist right championed British entry, and‘a decadeslong fight with the left was set in train, = son became Labour Leader, and against the background of a declining economy and Tory scandals like the “Profumo affair” a Labour goverment was elected in 1964.

Although it included Gaitskellites such as Roy Jenkins and George Brown, it was dominated by ex-Bevanites — like Wilson himself, Barbara Castle and Richard Crossman.

But as we shall see, this wing of the leadership were in practice no more committed to basic socialist change than the Gaitskellites they replaced.

non-payment of Poll Tax. This should be accompanied by an insistance on Labour Councils’ complete noncooperation with Poll Tax and refusal to prosecute non-payers.

Every Scottish CLP must also make known its unequivocal support for the forthcoming constitutional convention. In both cases this must be done in collaboration with any other forces prepared to join in — yes, including the SNP.

Only in this way can Scottish Labour ‘begin to repair the damage so graphically revealed in Govan butunderway since June 1987. Onlyin this way can Labour reassert its leadership of the class and its allies in the fight against the Tories.

Left in the dark

No work with anyone outside the Labour Party, no internal democracy, no organisation, and definitely no campaigning — this was the appalling upshot of the first national co-ordinating meeting called by the Campaign Group of Labour MPs.

When Tony Benn suggested that though model resolutions and Conference votes were important, we still had to get out and campaign to win public support, he was denounced.

Apparently, circulation of CLPD model resolutions is the sole order of the day.

For those regional delegates who had hoped to see the fragile gains of the Benn-Heffer challenge turned into something durable, the affair was deeply frustrating.

Hopesraised by the gathering were dashed by sectarian wreckers.

The 30-odd people who fidgeted through the five hour session in central London on

“November 12th could hardly be

Policy Review “consultation”

By Mike Marqusee Haringey Labour Briefing

called a fair representation of the Labour left or of the forces which backed the leadership challenge.

Obviously, cobbling together a democratic structure for the Labour left will be a difficult process.

But any suggestion that we might at least embark on such a

— or that a number of

groups excluded from the initial meeting ought to be included in the next — was dismissed out of hand. What a shame!

Mobilising support for NEC slates, leadership contests, model resolutions would be so much easier if the people being mobilised had some say in what they were being mobilised for!

Alas, many of those present clearly felt that their current influence would be undermined by a democratised and rein-

vigorated left.

To name names: Socialist Action, Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, and the Women’s Action Committee leadership.

The Greenham Common women and the FAB campaign, we were told, had achieved nothing. Any collaboration with people outside the Party was ruled out.

This dogmatic hostility led the aforementioned forces. (abundant at such meetings; weak on the ground) to veto future participation by Women for Socialism, to denounce the Socialist Conference, and even to refuse to work with the NUR Broad Left!

Most deplorable of all, they rejected every positive proposal for campaigning. No steps were taken (oreven discussed) on the Poll Tax (though everyone agreed there were powerful lessons for Labour in Govan).

How, then, are we to win support for socialist policies in the Party? How are we to get people to Party and union meetings to actually vote for the precious model resolutions?

Those of us who are active at

the Party base know just how tough the political terrain is at the moment. We know that the

‘loss of membership, the despair

of activists, the collapse of Party machinery brought about by right wing rule is deeply damaging to the left.

‘We know that the Party must reach out to new forces, forces currently outside its ranks — above all those forces struggling now against the Tories.

What is true of the Party as a whole is doubly true of the left, which will perish if it confines itself to Party parliamentarism.

Is this what the thousands of ‘Party members who voted for | Benn and Heffer want from us? Surely that vote was above all a Protest against the inertia, the irrelevance, the impotence of

Surely it was a call to do something now — not after the next General Election, win or lose.

Kinnock won’t heed that call, but we must.

Because the light switch in the meeting room was inacces-

The Labour Party

John Ross: snapped on a rare outing at Labour Party Conference, 1987. Not many photos exist of this man in daylight.

The next meeting of the national co-ordinating meeting

sible, the meeting ended in will be held on January 14th. If

darkness — an apt metaphor.

- Early birds will get

Conference worms

It may seem abit early to Start talking about next year’s Party Conference (especially for comfades who had to endure this year’s) but one of the left’s perennial failings is being late.

With the completion of the Policy Review, the 1989 Conference is going to be more important than ever; there are a number of things comrades should do, even at this early stage.

First, we must ensure that the Policy Review Group reports to Conference are subject to amendment and that the resolutions passed at 1988 Conference are treated as mandates by the Groups.

The basic democratic right of amendment was denied to comrades this year, and it appears likely that in 1989 the Policy Review documents will be submitted to Conference as NEC documents, which normally cannot be amended.

Try to get the following resolution through GCs and Off to the NEC as soon as possible:

“Ths CLP demands that the Psy Review Groups treat ti resolutions passed at the 1988 Annual Conference as mandates. Furthermore, this CLP notes that the 1989 Labour Party Conference by endorsing the iew documents, decide the Party's programme for the next General Election.

By John Wilton Birmingham Edgbaston CLP

‘We therefore stress the urgent need to ensure that the final Policy Review documents are made available in sufficient time before 1989 Conference for consultation and amendment by CLP members. Consequently, this CLP demands:

*a) that the Policy Review documents be circulated throughout the Party by the beginning of July 1989 at the very latest;

“b) that the 1989 Policy Review statements are subject to amendment by the 1989 Annual Conference, and that adequate arrangements be made to receive, publish, circulate and put before Party Conference any and all amendments.”

Secondly, comrades should ensure that their CLPs discuss and contribute to the Policy Review.

One deadline being quoted for submissions is January 31st 1989. If this is correct, there is very little time.

A political education pack on the Policy Review Groups has been sent out to all CLPs. Comrades should demand debate on each of the Policy Group areas.

There are to be eight national policy “forums” organised by Head Office. These will cover the seven

Policy Review Groups, plus “how to build the women's Perspective into every aspect of our policies.”

Representation at the forums is to be limited to three delegates per CLP, five from each affiliated trade union, two from each Socialist Society, one from Regional Councils, one from Labour Groups.

Labour MPs, Euro MPs, and Euro-candidates are also invited.

Despite obvious reservations about this dubious “consultation exercise” it is vital that the left is represented at these meetings and that we argue for

socialist policies at them. Finally, comrades should

start to organise now to get

Briefing supporters elected

{you worked for Benn and Hef-

as CLP delegates to Annual | Tony Benn pauses for thought

Conference.

Many CLPs_ elect delegates at their AGMs in March and require branches to nominate in February. If we are to have an effective input into Conference we need as many Briefing supporters as possible on the Conference floor.

Organise the left in your constituency, form Briefing groups — act now! By next September it may be too late!

Policy forums

1, London/South: Feb. lith

Women and Labour's policies for the future 2. Wales: Jan. 28th

People at Work 3. North West: Jan. 28th

Britain in the World 4. Yorkshire/Northern: Feb. 25th

Consumers and the Community _

\fer, if you want to see an active Labour left, make sure you're represented.

‘5. Scotland: Jan. 14th Economic Equality 6. East/West Midlands: Jan. 14th or 21st (to be confirmed) Productive and Competitive Economy 7. Eastern: Jan. 28th

Physical and Social Environment

8. South West: Jan. 21st Democracy for the

Individual and the Community

PHOTO: Leesa Herbert

PHOTO: Leesa Herbert

rth East Regional Socialist Conference

For socialism in our lifetimes!

Remember, remember, the 5th of November, 1988: the first North Eastern Region Socialist Conference in Durham.

Nearly 200 comrades were there, including a large proportion of young people.

Criticisms of the Labour Party came thick and fast from Party members on the platform and in workshops,

as the left responded to the Leadership's move rightwards,

Derek Cattel of the Steer-

By Julie Jeavons Newcastie University Labour Club

ing Committee started it off by condemning the Party for serving up “the warmed up leftovers of Callaghan and Wilson”.

Audrey Wise continued the theme, saying how easily the Tories could be defeated, and that the Labour Party was going the wrong way.

Audrey was then attacked

by the RCP for seeing the Labour Party as the only force for socialism; but defended by the SWP for taking a stand against the Party Leadership.

Criticism of the Leadership was very unpopular just two years ago: this Conference showed how much things have changed. The left is united in its frustration. There is a will to fight — sat on by the Labour and trade union leaderships.

One of the major points to come out of the Conference was the real need to forget ideological differences and |work on the common ground

shared by different groupings. The Socialist Conference was encouraged to continue its work; perhaps by moving outwards now, from Regions to Districts.

Brian Gibson, of the Steering Committee and Spennymore TUC, appealed for ‘this to be done patiently and slowly, to avoid sectarianism and achieve solidarity.

Pat Buckley of the Steerling Committee and USDAW ‘summed it all up, saying “Al- ‘though | will probably never ‘see socialism in my lifetime, ‘the young people here today might.” | hope we can prove

iher right

D. Sinclair/Militant

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 8

Feature: The Local Government Debate

Backing the “old stay in and fight position”

Resignation

The only way forward

“Mass resignation ultimately is the same as allowing our opponents to run the Councils. Remaining in power may mean having to make unpleasant choices but at least we can ensure that priority is given to maintaining services for those most in need.”

So says Margaret Hodge, one of Labour’s leading local government New Realists.

Of course, no one associated with Briefing goes along with the fantasy that Labour Councils can stay legal and protect “those most in need”. But, like the New Realists, most Briefing supporters are against resignation, albeit for different reasons.

Our “stay in and fight” position is no longer viable. It is based on the untenable idea that we can still gain political control and force Labour Councils to take on the Tories.

Instead, we should advocate resignation as a strategy fot taking us forward and dealing with the political crisis facing the Labour Party.

Overall, the Tories plan to change local government from a direct provider to a supervisory service, and their strategy for taking on Labour Councils is clear:

first, the financial squeeze, forcing capitulation tothe threat of surcharge:

sthen, the battery of legisla~ tion which the New Realist strategy cannot stop;

finally, the Poll Tax, which Labour Councils will collect and police for the Tories — because none will run the risk of surcharge.

Already, Labour Councils facing financial deficits are attacking their own workforces, cutting back services, and doing deals with property developers which help push out local communities,

By John Turkie Hackney North &

Stoke Newington CLP

Labour Councils, locked in battle with their own workforces, tenants and communities, will be in no shape to resist privatisation and the Housing and Education Bills.

‘The slide into real chaos for some Labour Councils may

will only delay Labour implementation of the Tory programme — allowing it in piecemeal instead.

And this is exactly the “strategy” the Tories want them to adopt. It has the practical effect of undermining resistance at the same time as discrediting the Labour Party.

The Labour Party should resign and leave the tasks of trying to privatise services, administer the Poll Tax, and “negotiate” with trade unions over redundancies and cuts to

* Margaret Hodge: Leading New Realist

wellnot take place until after the 1990 elections. It's always possible. that enough’ people will believe in, whatever: platform Labour adopts to vote us in.

But as sure as night follows day, we will get dumped in the 1994 elections, the tories assuming office once the back of resistance has been completely broken — by Labour,

In any event, as far as we are concemed, it will be well nigh impossible to defend Labour Councils at the next elections. The New Realist strategy, adopted by all Labour Councils,

the Tories. Our job is to liaise with the unions about opposition.

Freed of responsibility forthe cuts, Labour could give a political lead locally and organise resistance amongst tenants, local govemment workers, and: the wider community.

We would then have an opportunity to build a base from which to launch a credible

socialist bid for power in future elections, one committed to taking on the Tories.

At this eleventh hour, we’re talking about damage-limita-

tion. Of course, if we were to win this position in local Parties, many right wingers would simply refuse to resign. And in’ areas with large Labour majorities we may not be able to engineer a situation where Labour lost overall control.

But where Labour's majority ‘on the Council is slim, the resignation of all Councillors opposed to cuts would force the Tories into the front line of trying to implement what is, after all, their own programme.

‘Those who argue against this position must present a credible alternative strategy. Already, many anti-cuts Councillors are becoming demoralised and individual resignations are bound to proliferate.

Adequate

Our demand for setting a needs budget and our slogan of “no cuts in jobs and services” are no longer adequate responses to Labour's political crisis. Our “stay in and fight” position only ‘continues to make) sense if there’s at least a possibility that Labour Councils!

+ will take on’ the Tories instead

of their own workforces,| tenants, and communities. The reality is that all are too far down the road of collaboration’ totum back.

No doubt some will see this} strategy of resignation as abandoning ‘the working class. If we’ re honest with ourselves, we!

know Labour Councils have al-|:

ready abandoned the working! class. |

Unpalatable. though it may} seem to some, we must argue) nationally for pulling out of| local government now. Staying} in office (without power) and, doing the Tories’ dirty work for| them will mean paying a far higher price, in the longer term, than any associated with resignation.

WHERE IN LOCA GOVER

Much has changed in local government sii as a Labour Briefing-inspired left took contro rate-capping has tightened the financial sc! to the inner cities, Labour Councillors are haj education, housing, Poll Tax and compulsory

In this feature Hilda Keane, a former Leade from the immediate tactical concerns of tod nature of local government.

Greg Tucker and John Turkie take up the in attitude to forthcoming local elections shou!

John Turkie surveys Labour’s record in lo conclusion that Labour Councillors should re takes the view that the Council Chamber st struggle.

So this is the beginning of the debate. Ple your agreements and disagreements with letters on individual points, or articles up to to PO Box 457, London SW2 5UZ as soon as follow-up feature for the New Year. In partic: the local government view from outside Londj part, please give us a ring on 01-733 7016.

The state co

What’s lo local gove

The debates about the role of socialists within the local state need to be understood in the context of the changing role of the central state in recent

By Hilda Kean Hackney South & Shoreditch CLP, former Leader of Hackney Council

years and the degree

to which this is a which could be used by

response to the community and

actions of socialist campaigning organisations

Councillors. Larne employ or direct control.

First, we need to acknowledge the many positive achievements of

Some saw the presence | of socialist Councillors as a

socialist activity on local focus for comnpeiging | Councils In the early 80s community andasa = - and recognise the political base for

diverse nature of the challenging the politics of political currents the Labour leadership.

There were successes.

promoting them. " Liverpool City Council did

Many Councillors, in

London at east, were keen homes, Lambeth and other

to. advocate accountability | ondon Boroughs did make|

of the Labour Grouptothe Concerted efforts to

local Party, refi the improve services.

then national mood ver, in general

increased Party democracy. ~ successes were not based ‘The same Councillors on the crucial financial

were likely vigorously to issues, which became

oppose freemasonry and increasingly dependent

corruption amongst upon government control of

abagila and officers the Rate ‘Grant or ike. borrowing capital They also believed that ex] est dg i

they could run the local @ main scope for

state better than their right —_—_ exercising relative

wing predecessors — or autonomy within the local

existing fellow Councillors. ,State came abo a

— often on the assumption litical and ideologi

that the right were lazy or issues: the

‘inefficient. of nuclear free zones,

| Forothers, the local state animal , calls fora

|was a provider of resources _united Ireland, equal

IMENT?

se our/tront page declared “London's Ours!” of the GLC. Since those heady days

vy, and as Thatcher has turned her attention ing to face an avalanche of legislation on

competitive tendering.

‘of Hackney Council, takes a step back y and provides a useful overview of the

imediate tactical question of what the left’s

be.

| government, and draws the controversial ign. Greg Tucker, an anti-cuts Councillor, | offers an arena to raise and promote the

se put pen to paper. and write to us about

views presented here — whether short

00 words. Please send your contributions ible, so that we can prepare the first

ar, we would like to run a special feature on

in — so those of you who'd like to take

ithe State al about mnment?

opportunities, and lesbian gay rights. __ The changes instituted by the central state have sought to undermine this called psig and autonomy as much as to restrict financial The Tate-capping ition introduced in 1 eo, not only a emi in revenue cuts bt aloe id pet — for centrali ical control. This was consolidated by e re-election of the onservative government a third term in 1987. __ This emphasis has continued, for example, in recent Local Government

inany political part, even canvassing in elections. Sebs has tl a failure adequately with the inancial issues 2

areas historically outside their control — when they are unable or unwilling to defend and improve “finance-b: ” services for which they have a historic responsi fe Any discussion of the action of socialists in and against the local state needs to analyse the different ts of the rolationship wih te cx relatic centre. We need to consider both what positive measures have been achieved as well as what is now being eroded or dismantled.

Patently, the Labour right has no viable strategy to defend working class communities. ALA's line of providing.quality service through cuts in wor! tions and Jobs has proved not to work — even on their own terms.

Cuts in jobs and services have resulted in exactly that: cuts in jobs and services! This fact is increasingly recognised and pes oh by local organised community groups and unions.

er our view about

the current role of socialist Councillors we must all surely welcome the local campaigns against cuts, feiss at present by Brent.

jere community groups and unions have won significant gains and remain an inspiration to all those seeking to defend

"Demands made by local people”

Labour Brioting No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 9

Feature: The Local Government Debate

Staying in office

PHOTO: Nick Hazlewood

Part of a wider struggle for power

In the London Borough elections of 1986 it was already hard to find decent comrades willing to stand as candidates.

In some Boroughs the election panel was barely larger than the number of seats ‘vacant. That situation is now igetting much worse.

Faced with Thatcher’s reelection and an acquiescent Labour leadership, some people are beginning to argue that it is no longer worth staying in local government.

Rate-capping had already limited Labour’s ability to deliver on manifesto promises. The combined effect of thirdterm Tory legislation now makes it possible for the government to force Labour Authorities to do things which make Bradford Tories look tame.

Labour's new local government leadership, personified by Blunkett and Hodge, argue that the point of local government is to deliver “decent services efficiently”.

Closing down services and sacking workers becomes OK as long as it can masquerade as,

improving efficiency. The | government's ‘attack becomes not so much a threat as a challenge.

Only a few years ago in “Fortress Islington”, Margaret Hodge was able to stand with Briefing supporters on a programme of expansion, foran ambitious ‘drive to deliver new services to working people. |Here was the possibility of making a change — or so it seemed.

‘That dream soon faded, but it is too simple to merely place the blame on sellouts from the top. Those who now feel like dropping out of local government often overestimated the ability

working class communities.

to change society by Council

By Greg Tucker Lambeth Councillor

action in the first place.

Local government Councils are not and cannot be islands of socialism. Change was never going to be possible simply by using control of Council budgets.

Over 60 years ago the Poplar Councillors had to contend not only with the Tory goverment, but also with official Labour

which did not “associate

itself with demands .... which cannot be regarded as practicable in existing circumstances.”

Like many on the left today, they tried to answer a simple question:. “You now have the power — what are you going to do with it?”

But their ability to win even the realisation (conscious at least to the Communists within their ranks) that their battles had to be fought as part of an overall working class struggle for

For that reason, they built up a strong local Party; as a Group, they allowed themselves. to be subject to local Party discipline in order to unite the Party be-

hind them; and they took their campaign out into the country, organising support for their strategy. Above all, they saw themselves as part of a much wider struggle for power.

It is not possible to build a council strategy which does not recognise its place in this wider struggle. Those who wanted to use the Council Chamber for social change and now see it for the charade it always was feel disillusioned.

We have to find a way to organise so that we can bring them with us, to make concrete our view that only through the global fight for socialism will

we be able to make real changes, and thereby to map out the role that Councillors can play in that process.

Despite the new terrain mapped out by the Tories, local Councils remain a political arena which we cannot avoid.

In writing the election manifesto in Lambeth we tried to address these points. Using the heightened awareness of jlocal services built up by the \ratecapping campaign, we brought forward concrete idemands being expressed by the local community.

But we did not leave it there, \as a shopping list, we put the ‘demands intoacontext of politijeal struggle, starting from

\where we already were — with

31 Councillors being. sur- {charged. This saw us though the election with a better result than anywhere else in London. Subsequently, we were not able to hold onto the layer of Councillors who had come forward in agreement with our | shopping list, but who had not tyet been won to the broader strategy. | Faced with government pressure and the inability to make progress on even the basics of the shopping list, they capituslated. Briefing has always tried to ‘organise the left in the Council Chambers. It can be argued that at times it merely voiced aspirations rather than providing a clear national line of march. Too often, the organisation we built up to get comrades selected faded away afier we had got them elected. Over the last year we have itried to build Councillors Against the Cuts, which at-

FS |tempts to hold a line of resis-

tance. We have been able to or-

| ganise sizeable minorities in many London Boroughs, and start to make contacts elsewhere.

Whether we like it or not, Labour will be staying in local govemment. Of course, there will be areas where the leftisnot strong enough to put comrades forward, and nearly everywhere else we must draw up strategies

| knowing that we are starting from a position of weakness.

| But rather than handing over the terrain to the right, and snip-

‘ing at them when they inevitably fail, we have to use the contradiction between the demands made by local people on Councils, and the role being forced on Councils by the Tory government.

The government seems strong, but the pressure of the working class and their needs

| and demands will not go away.

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 10

Features: A Socialist Strategy for Europe

1992: a snare and a delusion for Labour

The recent change in Labour’s EEC policy is one of the most astonishing and rapid reversals the Party has ever experienced.

No sooner had the dust settled on the 1983 election than the official Party line on the

Common Market (i.e. complete withdrawal) sank

without trace and with hardly .

a whisper of protest.

Now it seems Labour is set to go one step further and actually embrace the EEC beacon of socialist hope.

Witness the effusive wel-.

come given to Jacques Delors at the TUC and Neil Kinnock’s enthusiasm for the “Social Europe” concept.

1992, we are told, is not only an opportunity for big business; it also represents “a challenge for the left”. As the trade bartiers come down, the argument goes, so too will disparities in income and social welfare within the Community.

Closer scrutiny, however, should inject some healthy caution into this new-found “Europhoria”.

In spite of M. Delors’ fine words, the 17-member EEC Commission — like the EEC Council of Ministers — has a Centre-Right majority, for whom the internal Market is primarily a matter for the business world with a few “social” measures thrown in to keep the voters happy.

By Walter Cairns Press Officer, Labour Common Market Safeguards Committee

This is why Delors emphasised that his TUC speech was delivered in a personal capacity. This political balance is unlikely to change with the appointment of new Commissioners from January 1989.

©The Single European Act, the legal framework for the Intemal Market, is almost exclusively concemed with the removal of trade barriers, with only the odd isolated Article

Socialist Conference

European Working Group

formed

By Jim Thain

Hackney North & Stoke Newington CLP

As 1992 looms, the question of how socialists should approach a unified European market is assuming considerable importance.

A step towards developing a coherent answer was taken on November 4th, when a European Working Group, was formed, largely under the auspices of the

Socialist Society.

Present were Jeremy Beale, Penny Camp, Steve Cowan, Ron Huzzard, John Lambert, John Paimer, Peter Tatchell, Hilary Wainwright, John Williams, Peter Wragge

and myself.

part of jalist

The gous mee will be published and will become the Soci: orference policy-making process.

Hilary Wainwright proposed that we compile a European-wide directory of labour movement links. Any contributions should be sent to Jeremy Beale, c/o the Socialist Conference, 9 Poland Street, London W1V 3DG.

Many points of controversy were raised. | would like to respond to John Palmer's contention that the left should raise bourgeois democratic demands in relation to EC

institutions. Itis true that in certai

should form principled alliances with bour;

special circumstances, Marxists

geois democracy.

It was, after all, the failure of Stalinism to come to terms with German Social Democracy that permitted the rise of

Nazism.

But this is a question of the relationship of Marxists to

is insti s. No one seriously believes that a lopean Superstate will emerge after 1992.

Marxists do not seek to impose bourgeois democratic

capitalist systems. We would

not ‘hat IC a much more coherent transnational

who will really lose

Scam ey ay se under

‘out will be the

the European working class and that there will benefits for the weakest.

dealing with such vague areas as “safety at work”.

Nowhere does it make provision for a comprehensive programme of social welfare at the European level, or even for the harmonisation of benefit levels. (Even if such harmonisation was agreed, EEC precedent suggests it would result in a reduction of all national levels to the lowest common denominator.)

The “Social” Europe outlined by Delors would require the comprehensive revision of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act, which in tum requires the consent of all twelve member states.

It defies belief that socialist governments will accede to power in every member state

Whilst close co-operation with our sister parties in the Socialist International is praiseworthy, it remains a hard fact that its EEC members, with the exception of the Labour Party, have all endorsed the Single European Act and its business-orientation.

Thus, even a convergence of socialist | governments throughout the Common

Why not accept we're

Market would not necessarily result in any agreement on the shape of a future Socialist Europe.

Does this mean that there is no scope for European socialist co-operation under a Labour government? Certainly not, but joint action must be based on a bedrock of consensus among those taking part.

The next Labour government should therefore make clear to other EEC member states that it intends to be selective about those areas of Community decision-making with which it wishes to be associated.

To this end, it must repeal, or at least amend, Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act, which gives effect to EEC legislation in Britain. This would mean that no provisions of the Treaty of Rome, or any Common Market legislation will be applicable in this country without prior assent by Parliament.

‘The government would then be able to adopt those European measures (for example, environmental or consumer protection statutes) which suited this country’s interests, whilst rejecting those of which

in the EC?

Both Finn Jensen and Jim Thain (in Briefing no. 70) berate Peter Tatchell for “reformism” because he advocates working within EEC institutions.

By Dave Spencer Coventry Labour Briefing

Indeed, Jim goes as far as to say, “You can't reform capitalism.”

Where he gets this idea from, I don't know. Of course you can reform capitalism!

Their attack on Peter is particularly surprising since both Finn and Jim support British withdrawal from the EEC (and stopping Turkey joining it).

What are these but precisely reformistdemands within capitalism? They are certainly not revolutionary or jonal demands to socialism.

It’s true that Peter's article in the Briefing Summer Special showed illusions in state institutions, but his proposals do have the merit of starting from where we are — in the capitalist EEC — and advocating self-activity across national boundaries to gain solidarity and strength.

We should also call for the

out of state lines between the EEC and Eastern Europe.

What is striking about

travelling in Europe is not

Similarity in the lives of working people across Europe: French nurses take industrial (above), as British nurses contemplate similar ' action

action.

“the uneven development of European states,” as Jim claims, but the tremendous similarity between the lives and the consciousness of working people in the different countries and how much there is to learn from shared experiences.

Finn mentions the betrayals of Social Democracy and the New Realism of the EuroStalinistsin Western Europe. But these are common to us all, with lessons for us all, easily understood by comrades in the Eastern bloc.

Surely, from all the 1968 nostalgia we must have learned one thing: how quickly a breakthrough of struggle in one nation can spread and affect consciousness elsewhere.

This is at least 20 times

more true today, 20 years _

Neil Kinnock: sinking the Party's EC policy without trace

it did not approve (such as the free movement of goods or the Common Agricultural Policy).

The other member states might not dance with joy at such

later.

In these circumstances, after 15 years of British EEC membership, the tired slogan of withdrawal behind state lines can only have a reactionary appeal to nationalism and a “lager lout” arrogance, in spite of the intentions of the

Italso must have the effect of dampening down the kind of initiatives which both Finn and Jim propose at the end of their articles.

Why can't we get on with the sort of programme they suggest without the millstone of “withdrawal from the EEC” hanging round our necks?

Finn claims that British withdrawal would weaken capitalism. But since when has socialists’ main concern been the weakening of capitalism? Our main aim is the strengthening of the

a decision, but would have little option but to accept it. Any attempt to expel Britain would destroy the EEC’s political credibility.

working class.

The two things do not necessarily go together. Indeed, if withdrawal from the EEC meant a weakening of capitalism which brought with it more unemployment and lower wage rates, the working class would surely curse rather than revere the socialists who proposed it.

The reactionary nature of international capitalism is shown by the antics of leaders like Mrs Thatcher — who can't even get a European super-state together when national boundaries are becoming so obviously obsolete and a barrier to competition with Japan and the USA.

Our concern is not with their problems but with the self-activity and empower-~ ment of the and the socialist movement.

F : ’

yer eee

Features

er Privatisat

Full steam ahead!

The Tory Government is now steaming ahead with its commitment to privatise the water industry in the next session of Parliament.

Environment Secretary Nickolas Ridley had suddenly announced the shelving of this contentious legislation in June 1986, on the pretext of shortage of time.

By JOHN HAYBALL

Thatcher and her Cabinet knew that this issue would have provided the Labour opposition with an opportunity to ambush the government in the run-up to polling day.

Now, with another huge majority in the bag, the way is clear to raise another £5 billion plus at the expense of the family silver.

Assets valued at £27 billion

willbe stripped.

£2.5bn annually, giving it a significant place in the UK

economy.

Of its ten Regional Authorities (set up under Heath the Thames Board

achieves the highest

ree — just as South-East -

forms the profitable kemel of the rail system in the country’s most densely populated area.

The Tories have rushed to reassure the public of their intention to make proper provision for sewage, rivers, coastal protection, land drainage, fishing, etc.

‘These environmental responsibilities act as a brake on the profitability of Water Authorities. Ridley is proposing a National Rivers Authority with an is

But the Tories, with their lust for profits, cannot be trusted for one minute to safeguard our water.

Pesticides in wood preservatives, residues in food, and poisonous crop and garden spray are at last becoming a cause for public concern.

By Geoff Birch Hackney North CLP

One of the s at the first National Conference on Pesticides and Human Health, held in Cirencester in October, was the Tory MP Sir Richard Body.

He has long argued that

~ the Official Secrets Act is

‘used by vested interests to

the public in ignorance of the harmful health effects of these insidious and ubiquitous chemicals, which the National Poisons Unit estimate cause over 5,000 serious health problems a

They are also silent on national wage agreements. These will clearly be jeopardised, as they have in other privatised services, such as local govern meat and transport.

So far the main unions involved in water — GMB, NUPE, TGWU, and NALGO — have countered the government with a wishy-washy countability, adequaie investment, and the health factor.

This challenge demands more of the labour movement. Thatcher already has many outspoken advocates of privatisation in key positions. Roy Watts, Chair of the Thames Authority, is a former No. 2 at British Airways.

Over 10,000 job losses (one in six) in the water industry since 1981 will be added to by private sector cuts and pay deals.

With continuing job cuts comes increasing danger of accidental disaster, as earlier this year, when toxic liquid was poured into the main water

Only a Labour Party with its current calibre of leadership could fail to make maximum capital out of these disastrous proposals. ~ Yet Neil Kinnock’s magnificent 1987 General Election Campaign failed to highlight the issue and its implications, ¢.g. compulsory water meters, or its links (after Chemobyl) to the question of nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Wecouldeven link job losses to the Third World’s water problems by calling for the option of sabbatical secondment of water workers to those countries stricken by drought and to the 1,200 million people still living without a clean water supply.

‘We have the arguments. Given the will Labour can still tum this issue to its advantage.

Channel 4's “A Very British Coup’

The recent White Paper on broadcasting (Broadcasting in the 90s — Competition, Choice and Quality) will warm the hearts of Murdoch, Maxwell, and friends.

But it offers no comfort to those who would like their TV channels to broadcast facts and debate, or any kind of material that stimulates, excites, or challenges.

In the name of choice, the White Paper proposes a Channel 5 (from 1993), the sale of two extra satellite channels, and the auctioning of ITV (“Channel 3”) franchises to the highest bidder, subject to “quality thresholds”.

A quality threshold, apparently, is an undertaking that “nothing to be broadcast should offend against taste and decency, encourage crime or disorder, or be offensive to public feeling.”

The paper does not of course attempt to define whose taste

, shown earlier this year, presented a stimulating,

By Felicity Harvest Hackney South & Shoreditch CLP

and feelings we are talking about here, but I'm sure we can

guess.

The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA), the recently created guardian of the nation’s morality, is to become a statutory body. Coupled with the proposed abolition of the Independent Broadcasting Authority this is a clear indication of the priority given the maintenance of a purient, establishment view over any concept of “fairness”.

‘The IBA recently received a flood of complaints about a blatantly anti-semitic advert for the Midland Bank. It was able to use its teeth (i.e. the threat of being able to remove the franchise from the regional companies once every eight years) to insist that the advert was not shown.

The new Independent Television Commission will have no such teeth.

Once the Channel 3 franchises are sold, the only way they will change hands again is by a financial takeover, glomerates. With the Thames franchise valued at £250 million, the people of London will hardly be able to take major broadcast media into their own hands.

‘The White Paper claims that there will be limits on “media cross ownership”, but there is no reason to think they will be effective.

After all, who’s been first into the field of satellite TV broadcasts? The ubiquitous Murdoch, and WH Smith, whose retail enterprise has for years been dedicated to the homogenising of culture and stifling of political debate.

Beyond that, the White Paper strays into wonderland, with an

unspecified process of “nudging” BBC towards a subscrip-

PESTICIDES

Why should the labour movement be concerned?

The Conference was organised by the growing Environmental Medicine Foundation. Leading supporters of the EMF. include clinical ecologist Dr Jean Monro, dietician and authoress Stephanie Lashford (whose excellent book The Residue Report is just out) and several Lords and Ladies.

Amongst the speakers were representatives of more powerful vested interests. Alan Mole is employed by Restec (Residue Technology). His and other similar companies employ technicians to monitor pesticide residue levels in food for the major supermarkets.

This work is expanding constantly and yet is not policed in any way “ ais

public body. He argued that some of his rivals were not employing good laboratory practice and were not accountable. This contrasts with the Canadian system where there are three public-

ly policed laboratories in -

Montreal alone to test for residue levels.

Dr Andrew Cockburn and David Foulkes are employed by Schering Agrochemicals’ research centre. They argued that pesticides are relatively harmless and should be treated like any other threat to public health like smoking and peanuts!

A similar line is pushed by the Farmers Weekly which is heavily funded by the chemical companies, according to Sir Richard Body.

In opposition to this, Richard Young of the Farmers and Growers Association insisted that chemical spraying has been responsible for Dutch Elm disease and the demise of wildlife such as birds of prey and the bat and barn owl.

The reason for this, itis argued, is that the offending toxins weaken the immune system and can lead to ill health, causing cancers, etc.

Dr Monro emphasised possible dangers to humans. Unfortunately apart from the ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) campaigner Labour MP Jimmy Hood, there were few critical voices.

There were no contribu-

. tions either from Friends of

the Earth or the Pesticide Trust. And why didn’t we have a speaker from the London Food Commission? Set up by the GLC, they have been in the vanguard of the fight against dangerous pesticide residue levels in food.

Clearly, the voice of the Socialist Environmental Resources Association and the trade union movement must be heard at conferences such as these if these conferences are to have any credibility — and at £16.00 a ticket | think those in attendance deserve at least this!

The issue of pesticide poisoning must be placed prominently within the leading issues of our Green politics. Foremost amongst

. our demands should be that

2esaw So

| will make some of the rubbish

1, different view of how government can work. Will such productions be financially viable if the White Paper becomes law? Will they even me tolerated?

Tabloid TV?

tion system, and the idea of microwave broadcasting for the 90s.

The latter is supposed to allow more local programming. But, as with community radio, the govemment is likely to veto any system which gives a voice to oppressed people.

‘The failure of cable TV to be the anticipated money-spinner, and the financial collapse (in the | week of the White Paper) of the ‘much-vaunted “Superchanne!” demonstrate that broadcasting is an area in which the government, in its rush to serve its friends, can easily miscalculate.

Campaigning against this White Paper is therefore well worthwhile. What we have is far from perfect, but what we will get will be a lot worse.

If we do not fight these plans, we condemn ourselves to a future of tabloid TV so circumscribed by the vision of the moguls and the moralists that it

currently shown look like the

purest art.

blood level testing facilities be made available through the NHS. Otherwise, Environmental Medicine could be privatised by default. Only when these facilities are available to all on demand will the real dangerers posed by pesticides be understood. Until then we need a labour movement sponsored conference on these issues. They are too important to be left to the

i vested interests (however

well-meaning) represented at this Conference.

For further information see Pesticide Residues and Food, the Case for Real Control, by Pete Snell of the London Commission, 88 Old Street, London EC1, £5.00

Also read The Residue Report, by Stephanie Lashford, published by Thorsons, £4.95.

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 12 ————————

Letters a ws

Fight Hammond — from the inside

Dear Briefing,

T should like to comment on Alan Thomett’s article arguing that electricians should leave the EETPU.

First, to compare the EETPU with the UDM is misleading. ‘The UDM was set upin the middle of a national miners’ strike toassist the defeat of that strike.

By contrast, many EETPU branches have a history of struggle, both in support of their own demands and in solidarity with other workers.

Secondly, as Alan well knows, the history of left-wing breakaway unions is a disastrous one, with the militants isolated from the mass of the membership. John Aitken of Flashlight estimates that between 5,000 and 10,000 of the EETPU’s third of a million

members will leave; this breakaway, then, appears to be no exception.

Lastly, with Hammond outside the TUC, we are now in the best position for years to argue against his brand of unionism. The London Contracting branch, a thom in Hammond’s side for many years, succeeded last year in getting the branch reopened.

‘They recently voted to stay in the BETPU and fight, and sponsored a conference on November Sth in Manchester for all EETPU members who want to do the same. Let's hear more about initiatives like this in the pages of Briefing.

In 1961, the left made the mistake of seeing winning union positions as more important than winning the support of the rank and file, and rigged the ballot. Let’s not make a mistake like that again in arguing for a breakaway.

Clive Hopkins

North Lambeth SWP

Who’s

“slapdash” now?

Dear Briefing,

Ihave just read Mike Phipps’ review of my book Trade Unions and Socialist Politics in which he informs his readers of my theoretical superficiality and “slapdash” approach to classical Marxism.

Phipps was obviously too busy bashing my book to notice its positive endorsement of Luxemburg'’s idea of the “mass strike” which is central to the book's argument. Indeed, he didn’t even mention Luxemburg at all: very slapdash.

He complains that I didn’t really consider evidence on the conservative character of the trade union bureaucracy. Anentire chapteris devoted exactly to that job, and if Phipps thinks I have omitted or misinterpreted evidence he should say what the evidence is, and give examples instead of misleading readers

with false claims.

Yours sincerely, DrJohn Kelly,

Lecturer in Industrial Relations, London School of Economics and Political Science

OBITUARY

We deeply regret to announce the death of

‘supporter Craig Robertson, who committed suicide on November 12th.

Craig will be deeply missed and long remembered by those who knew and worked with him.

Though the movement may have failed to provide him with the support he needed, he was a tireless rin every battle of working class and the oppressed.

Thanks to Briefing

Dear Briefing,

May | take this opportunity to thank everyone at Labour Briefing for your hard work and the excellent coverage you gave the leadership campaign.

With best wishes, Tony Benn

Periscope

a —

Send snippets and info to Greg Bassett, Periscope Column, Labour Bri London SW2 5UZ

ing, PO Box 457,

The Other Side?

Aletter from Jim Kennedy, Secretary of the “Labour Life Group” tumed up In our PO Box the other day.

Kennedy writes personally to Greg Bassett:

“As your paper has no letters page (| wonder why) may | ask that you inform your readers of the Labour Life Group, Protect the Unborn Child, so that the other side of the abortion debate can. be presented for them to consider.”

As for ourletters page, Jim, see above.

We are also happy to print your address (43 Seely Road, London SW17 9QP, tel. 01-672 6013) as requested, In case any Briefing readers wish to pass on their views.

Of course, the cause of the Labour Life Group has the benefit of right wing media support. Since Briefing really does believein presenting the

“other side” may we remind readers of the excellent work done by the National Abortion , which can be contacted at:

Wesley House, 4 Wild Court, London WC2B BAU; tel. 405 4801

Buddy, can you spare about $120,000...

Next time you get another of those special appeal letters from Neil Kinnock along with your Labour Party News, pause for thought.

Which national political party recently wasted 60,000 on’ a financial assessment from consultants Peat-Marwick McLintock (fresh from their previous project — an altemative financial strategy for Guernsey)?

Surely It wasn’t the same ‘one that lost $65,000 on an NHS day In July at Ally Pally?

Surely this “loadsalosses” party can’t be the one that thinks If can convince the electorate it can run the country?

And surely, surely, tt can’t be the one where all our money's going?

New Women’s Champion at Walworth Road _

Those who must be obeyed at Walworth Road have appointeda new Labour Party National Women’s Officer.

It ls Vicky Phillips, former NUS President; NOLS apparatchik, currently taking up space on the fight wing benches In acrimonious Homsey & Wood Green GC In the friendly North London Borough of Haringey.

Ms Phillips’ qualifications for the Walworth Road post almost certainly Include a visceral (and quite visible) hatred of the left. They could not possibly Include dedication to the interests of tank and file women.

Invover two years as a CLP member 'she has attended one meeting of the local Women’s Section: the 1988 AGM, which right wing cuts supporters attemptedto pack.

Once it became apparent that they had falled to round up enough stooges to win: GC seats, officers’ posts, etc., they left — and have not since then

been seen at a Women’s Section (or any other local

‘women’s meeting). Obviously, the perfect candidate for the job.

Haringey Frolics

Following defeat in two Haringey Council by-elections on October 6th, the local election agent (LCC witch-finder general Jo Moore) submitted a xeport to the CLP Campaign Committee. +

It was loaded with analytical ore, of which a few samples must suffice:

“Holding the election in the week of Labour Party Conference was also a gamble which didn’t pay off thanks to Ron Todd. Opinion polls since show that the results are unlikely to have been significantly different if they had been held on any other Thursday in October”.

(Surely some contradiction here? — Ed.)

“We have the Labour voters but for some reason they chose not to vote... the most worrying factor is the collapse of the Alliance vote, in past we have only be able to win this two wards when there has been a strong alliance vote. Some how we need to win over some of that Alliance vote.” (sic!)

Proof of the Pudding

Michael Meacher, at a GCHQ rally in Newcastle, denounced Thatcher's hypocrisy in Poland. And quite right too.

But what about

Meacher’s hypocrisy? He pressed full support for British trade unionists; but where was he during the Miners’, Seafarers and Postal Strikes? We can’t remember the ex-NEC member appearing on the

own ex-

picket lines.

Meacher also pledged

that the next Labour would reinstate and fully compensate the sack-

trade A murmur of cynicism arose crowd.

government

ed GCHQ unionists.

from the Wonder why?

Building Briefing

CONTACT BRIEFING

The Briefing Editorial Board, Trade Union Briefing, Briefing Women, the Briefing Economics Commission, and International Briefing can be contacted at PO Box 457, London SW2 5UZ, 01 733 7016:

Deadline for articles:

Issue no. 74 (out Dec. 7th): notify EB as soon as possible, alll articles in by Tuesday November 29th.

After issue 74, Briefing will be taking a Xmas break. We'll be back early in the New Year: watch this space for details of 1989 publication dates!

Published by Labour Briefing, PO Box 457, London ‘SW2 5UZ Printed by East West Graphic Ltd (TU)

SUBSCRIBE TO BRIEFING

Make sure of your copy of the fortnightly Labour Briefing. Annual subscriptions are £12 (individuals), £24 (institutions). Write to PO Box 457, London SW2 5UZ (cheques, etc., payable to Labour Briefing).

SELL LABOUR BRIEFING

If you're a regular reader, you obviously feel the need ito read each issue of Briefing. But why keep the good news to yourself? Bulk orders are available on sale or return for yout to selll to your friends; or join with the many other Briefing readers who take this easily saleable paper to their Labour Party, trade union and campaign meetings. Join the resistance! Just send the form to PO Box 457, London SW2 5UZ.

Name.

Please send me (min. order 5) copies of Labour

Briefing on sale or return, starting with issue no.

BRIEFING 500 CLUB

itis very expensive to produce a socialist newspaper |— despite our high sales up and down the country, we still need a subsidy to keep the paper fortnightly and keep up with all the activities we want to be part of. We have no rich backers, no hidden sources of income.

‘The Briefing 500 Club exists to offer our supporters the opportunity of making a small regular donation and enter a fortnightly draw for a £25 prize — this for just £1 per week, or £4 per month. Will you spare the cost of a pint ‘of beer or less than a packet of cigarettes each week? we can't guarantee you'll win the prize — but we will guarantee that unless you enter, you won't!

500 Club supporters also receive a Briefingsupporters card automatically. Just fill in the standing order form below, and retum it to PO Box 457, London SW2 5UZ.

Bankers order form for

Labour Briefing 500 Club

Bankers order To:

My account number is: ...

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

..... (date) of each month

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd- December 6th Page 13

BOOK REVIEW

Reviews

Are they after you?

Blacklisting: The Inside Story of Political Vetting, by Mark Hollingsworth and Richard Norton-Taylor, Hogarth Press, £7.95 (paperback).

— “Just because you think

they’re out to get you, it

doesn’t mean you’re ”

This maxim, dear to the

hearts of all Briefing sup-

porters, would make a fitting

subtitle for this book.

‘The evidence piled up by the authors demonstrates overwhelmingly that we are all on ‘The List, from raving revolu-

sn ea aia

ne ae this book thinking nothing would surprise me and with a rather patronising feeling that here were the naive, old liberals kicking up a fuss.

‘The depth of the research, however, and the power of the case the authors make has convinced me of the need for the

; a

of Blacklisting and the informa-

Track Record, Woolfson & Foster, Verso, £7.95 (paperback)

Shortly after Woolfson and Foster’s first joint work, Politics of the UCS Work-in was published, another important occupation began at the Caterpillar tractor factory in Uddingston, Scotland.

Woolfson and Foster

contacted the stewards, who agreed to tape all meetings throughout the occupation, which was to last 103 days.

The result of this research, Track Record, is a unique account of the that arose as the struggle itself unfolded. ~

*~In central Scotland, support for the occupation was massive; at last, someone had taken a stand against unemployment. ~~ Itmadelittle difference that __ the workers had only a slim ince of victory. Indeed, ie odds stacked against

helped to build popular

support. _ Above all, their decisive in seizing control of factory and kicking out management their struggle, immobi-

the Ministry of Defence (and those companies working for it), British Telecom, the BBC, the engineering and construction industries, and the car industry.

In the eyes of the establishment, to be a Communist, a trade unionist, a Trotskyist, indeed anywhere to the left of ‘Thatcher, is to be a subversive. Connections with CND, NCCL, Amnesty, or Anti-Apartheid, will all get you noticed.

By Steve King Haringey Councillor

A South Australian Police Commissioner explained his criteria for political vetting:

“Obviously anyone who shares any affinity towards Communism — that’s common. sense.

“The IRA, the PLO, and I would say anyone who's decrying marriage, family life, and trying to break that up, pushing drugs, advocating the acceptance of certain drugs, homosexuality, indiscipline in schools, weak penalties for anti-

social crimes, pushing that sort of thing.

“Oh, a whole gamut of things like that that could be pecking away at the foundations of our society and weakening it.”

‘This man was formerly a Chief Constable in Yorkshire.

‘There are excellent chapters on the Special Branch and the Economic League. The former spends disproportionate amounts of time snooping into people’s political lives as opposed to preventing crime (they are, after all, police officers).

Although accountable to the local Chief Constable, they do most of their work for MIS, who are accountable to nobody, so even a relatively “liberal” chief of police, like John Alderson, is tg to do anything about

ao scale of the Economic League’s operations is enormous. They keep lists of all sorts of people deemed subversive and: supply them t their subscribers. They keep advertisements and petitions. Catherine Cookson, who once signed up for a nuclear freeze, is on their file, along with signatures on nomination forms for Council candidates.

BOOK REVIEW

Caterpillar: Workers in control?

lined up against them.

Neither the magnates of a huge multinational corporation, nor the right wing AEU leadership could lift a finger to end the “illegal” occupation, despite all the Tories’ anti-union laws.

The workers produced a tractor painted pink (in contrast to the company yellow) and offered it to War on Want (Scotland) for shipment to Nicaragual

By Jim Niblock Glasgow Central CLP

Seizing control of a factory

posed all manner of

not least the con-

tradiction between the ad-

vanced nature of this form of

struggle and its containment within a single factory.

In the case of UCS, the adversary was clearly the government, which decreed that a nationalised industry, shipbuilding, should go tothe wall. AtCaterpillar, a multinational was restructuring its

live capacity in line with global corporate

strategy.

UCS workers could argue the case for a change of government policy to save jobs, but what demands could be raised to save Caterpillar jobs? Here was

the key weakness of the struggle:the workers’ inability to give political direotion to the massive and spontaneous groundswell of sup-

port.

It would be mistaken to criticise the factory leadership in this regard, when no one on the left advanced a coherent strategy capable of fusing popular support to a series of political demands against unemployment.

Without this lever, however, politicians from all parties could “support” the occupation in the manner of

Economic League Director General Michael Noar explained: “Thereisno suggestion that these... are used for employment vetting at all. They are merely for our own internal

MIS, the SB, and the Economic League are all sup-

‘ported by an army of private in-

vestigators, made up largely of ex-policemen. They break the law with impunity — as their constant use of the Police National Computer shows. They are also used to infiltrate trade and political groups.

One case study should make all attenders of Briefing meetings sit up. An accountant was refused a job at a subsidiary of Phillips Electronic and associated industries,

It transpired that during the miners’ strike he had subscribed toa number of left papers to get an altemative view of the dispute, one of which was The Next Step. He had also attended one RCP meeting, where he had signed the attendance register — and that was that, MIS had him on file!

Where does all this leave us? Hollingworth and Norton-

Lenin’s famous. hangman's rope. Both the strength and weakness of the campaign was demonstrated by the appearance of Thatcherite MP Allan Stewart on the platform of a rally in support of the oocupation!

The book has good analysis of the political situation in Scotland, both before and after the occupation, so before you reach for Vol. 39 of Lenin's collected —_ give this one a try — cially at the special dire price available only to Brief_ingteaders!

SPECIAL OFFER!

Briefing readers discount!

TRACK RECORD: The Story of the Caterpillar Occupation by Charles Woolfson and John Foster

The inside story of an inspiring struggle —

hard-hitting, dramatic,

provocative! Only £4.95 — £3 off normal retail price!

Send this order form with

cungeepeyebiete Vetanto

Verso, 6 Meard Street, London W1

Please send me

copy/copies of Track Record at

This is what the well-dressed police year. So if you see one sitting at the back of the GC...

Taylor make all the right noises about lack of accountability, lack of legal protection (blacklisting is not illegal), and the need for the right to employment to be seen as a basic right and legally enshrined as such. Alll this is clearly necessary, but change needs to go a lot

fc.

The link between blacklisting and national security goes back along way and is based on the “Russian threat”. The Economic League was founded in 1919 in response to the Bolshevik Revolution.

The Labour Party has never tackled this — for the same

BOOK REVIEW

Back

Basics

Arguing for Socialism: theoretical considerations, by Andrew Levine, Verso, £9.95.

On the European Left there are many who have decided to throwin their lot with “actually existing democracy”.

They prefer (in John Keane’s recent words) the “indeterminacy, -controversy and uncertainty” of capitalism to the. possible terrors of revolution and totalitarianism.

By ANDREW COATES

They want to soften the distinction between liberalism and socialism.

Itis therefore refreshing to read that Andrew Levine's Arguing for Socialism will weigh capitalism and socialism in the scales of

The failings of capitalism's 's democratic promises are investigated: how there is still an enormous inequality of power, how property rights are unjust.

“Liberal democratic politics,” Levine argues, are “a depoliticised politics of

officer will be wearing this

reason which makes a mess of our defence policy. Our Party, from the Leader down, has to break with the myth of the Russian threat, and show that without'such a threat we do not need nuclear weapons, huge arsenals, or blacklisting.

Similarly, with all the other “subversives”. As long as Labour appears to accept that Irish people, Palestinians, lesbians and gays, the decline of family life, and so on, pose some kind of threat, it legitimises vetting, blacklisting, and other measures allegedly designed to protect us from such “threats”.

to

minimal participation by the many and professional public service by the few.”

Arguing for Socialism is less specific about the problems of bureaucracy than Levine's later book The End of the State.

Difficulties

In that book Levine frankly investigates the difficulties faced by socialists who wish to finish with a “professional public service”. Not least amongst them are inequalities of skills and differences in access to fulltime decision-making.

Arguing for Socialism is clear and direct. However, it is difficult to know just who it is aimed at.

The book is too abstract for anyone who wants to hear the socialist case for the first time. It is also far too

general for a specialist. . Stools

As it is, Arguing for Socialism falls between two stools: general socialist polemic and rigorous theoretical argument,

But given a choice between Levine and figures likes Hobsbawm, few socialists, should: hesitate: pick up the former and junk the latter.

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 14

International Briefing

SWEDISH ELECTIONS

Now for the confrontation!

The Swedish election held on September 18th showed a shift to the left among voters.

The two major right wing parties lost around 330,000 votes (some 5.5%) compared to 1985.

Discontented voters either abstained or cast their votes for Miljépartiet (environmentparty) which enabled the Greens to enter parliament — an historic event in a country where no new party has entered parliament for more than 50 years.

By Goran Karrman Socialdemocratic Alternativ

The ruling Social Democratic Party (SAP) lost about 160,000 votes, butdue to the low turnout this was limited to a loss of about 1% nationwide and three seats in parliament. With support from the Swedish Communist Party (which gained one seat), the SAP government will hang on for another three years.

Since 1982, when the SAP’

regained power as a result of growing resistance among Swedish workers to the austerity policy of the six-

year old right wing governbs SAP policy has been dramatically shifted to the right.

The SAP government was able to implement extraordinary austerity measures with the help of trade union leaders. Swedish real wages have dropped from first or second place on the OECD list to twelfth place, just above Portugal.

With the help of the economic upturn, the socalled “third road” economic policy of the Swedish SAP has made the Stockholm stock exchange into the world’s fastest growing.

The stockbrokers gave their response to the election results when total trade jumped around 5%, or 30 billion crowns, in the following week.

The growing discontent among workers over the continuing pressure on real wages, cuts in public funds, etc., has lost the SAP almost a quarter of a million voters, compared to 1982.

But those votes have not gone to the right wing parties. While the Green Party could not be described as a “socialist” party — their economic policies are to some extent more conservative than the conservatives themselves — they have rejected austerity policies.

They have also benefited from the scandals amorig “leading circles”, including the Bofors secret arms deal, and the continuing inability to solve the assassination of Olof Palme.

This year abstentions jumped to over 15%, unusually high by Swedish standards.

An. economic package presented in mid-October by the Minister of Finance, ol. Olof Feldt, included a number ofmeasures fought for by the right during the election campaign: tax cuts for the rich, cuts in government funds for housing, and a series of measures aimed at

dragging Sweden as close Mediemstidning fér féreningen Socialdemokratiskt Alternativ Nr 6 - 1988 Pr as possible to the EC. The tight wing shift by SAP

leaders has not gone un-

answered by rank and file Va / et en ka MILIOPARTIET

Social Democrats and trade unionists.

For the first time ever, an alternative slate for parliament was presented in one. constituency (Jénképing county). “It received only some 3,500 votes, short of the 10,000 needed to win a seat.

This is areasonable show-! ing compared to the 7,000 votes for the Communist Party (5.9% nationally) and

the Greens’ 6,000 votes |

(5.4% nationally) in the same constituency.

At the same time the alternative slate for the local Council in the town of Nassj6. received 2,300 votes (down 600 from 1985 when it was sanctioned by the officials) and elected seven Councillors.

The ‘left’ outside the Communist Party failed completely to answer ina positive way the development of the Social Democratic left.

The main “left of left” group, the Trotskyist Socialist Party, presented its own slates, receiving around 400 votes in the Jénképing constituency. Nationally they failed to profit from the discontent and received a total of 13,000, 3,000 down from 1985.

Among the trade unions, an emerging movement of independent unionists is organising in response to the attacks of the right wing leaders of the SAP in government.

Last September, 500 rank and file unionists met in the town of Falun in response to a call issued by local trade union leaders. This meeting condemned the pressure on real wages as well as “responsible behaviour” in relation to the capitalists from Union leaders.

Despite the impressive turn-out in Falun, the real outcome of the meeting was not what was expected. The majority of Social Democratic-oriented workers saw no likely road forward when different “leftists” started to manoeuvre in order to use this independent movement of workers for their own ends.

In the aftermath of the elections, and with the clear statement from SAP officials that there will be further austerity measures and a continued “market-oriented” economic policy, a new call for a national conference of trade unionists has been made.

Things are rapidly moving towards a confrontation in Sweden.

Socialdemokratiskt J&

ALTERNATIV “i

for boraarna EI Salvador

On the verge of victory?

In 1984, the US administration was optimistic about its prospects for defeating the revolutionary struggle led by the FMLN-FDR in EI Salvador.

The US-sponsored reform programme had been crowned by Duarte’s victory in the so-called democratic elections of 1984.

Having driven the urbanbased unions underground and fostered the development of “moderate” Christian Democratic unions, it appeared to be on the verge of success.

ARENA, the ultra-right Party that organised the death squads in the early 80s, was on the defensive, and the military claimed that 80-90% of the countryside would be under its control by the end of 1985.

Four years later, the “low-intensity conflict” strategy, developed by the US, has failed.

At a recent meeting of trade unionists in London, Jaime Lopez, the FDR-FMLN representative in Britain, was able to declare “we are confident that ‘we are on the verge of a popular victory.”

This assessment is based on substantial evidence from Salvador today.

On the military front, the FMLN 1s now operating in every single department of El Salvador; before 1984, it had operated and held ground only in the East.

Moreover, the FMLN urban guerrilla units have grown. On November 2nd, these units struck twice at the National Guard HQ in the Capital, San Salvador.

Despite the US billions poured into the military effort, the FMLN has defeated the counter-insurgency and is now on the offensive, even to the extent of breaking the “iron circle” which the military hoped would defend the capital.

Meanwhile, a growing level)

of workers’ self-organisation in the urban areas led to the forma-

tion of the national Trade Union. Federation, UNTS, in February 1986.

militant federation describes itself as having many programmatic points in common with the revolutionary forces.

By WILL MCMAHON

All of this means that in the next year a showdown with the military dictatorship is highly likely. In this context, the FDR has decided to participate in the March 1989 Presidential election.

Initially, this question hadled toconflict between the FDR and the FMLN, but at present they describe their differences as more tactical than strategic.

For the FDR, the aim isnot to win (since fraud is inevitable) but to campaign for a political solution to the country’s crisis, ‘The FDR-FMLN will also use this opportunity to stake its claim to the overall leadership of the opposition forces.

‘The next year is therefore going to be a crucial one in the history of El Salvador and the whole of Central America. Labour movement activists must prepare now for solidarity work with the El Salvadorean revolution.

«Trade union and Labour Party affiliation to the El Salvador Solidarity Campaign should be the first step. Contact them at 13-16 Borough Road, London SE1, tel. 01-928 3412. Trade unionists should also send representatives to the ElSoc Trade Union Commission.

Comrades who can attend the North London Socialist Conference Against Imperialism on November 26th will be able to hear the FDR-FMLN representative in Britain speak about recent developments.

Meanwhile, the country is wracked by a combined social

tastrof

Framg&ngarna fér Mil,

tiet kan inte bara fér

and economic crisis. The failure of a half-hearted agrarian reform has come as no surprise, (wate

m 3 landless peasants duc to the war 60% of the peasantry are now without land. In the towns, 78% of the workforce are unemployed or under-employed. The country is also still feeling the repercussions of the 1986 earthquake (after which the poor saw little of the intemational aid sent to the country). Capping all these developments is the political change that has occurred in the last few years. The political “centre” has collapsed.Neither the ruling class nor the oppressed are any longer willing or able to see the

country carry on in its present

low in the next six months.

election period. is mirrored

cial struggles of the peasantry.

Duarte’s role as windowdressing for the military regime has become increasingly clear.

At the same time, the right is closely with the people,

coalescing around ARENA, rather than Duarte’s wing of the

oe important towns and cities. It has promised that if it wins the Presidential election in March 1989, 100,000 deaths will fol-

This is not an idle threat. A recent ARENA defector has described how the death squads are being reactivated for the

is polarisation on the right by a movement towards the FDR-FMLN among the urban workers and poor and a deepening of the FMLN’s implantation in the so-

‘These developments were, in part, produced by the bombing manner. strategy of the El Salvadorean military. The FMLN was forced to disperse into smaller units, which helped them work more

FMLN hits National Guard HQ

By Stuart Piper

Twice in November urban commandos of the FMLN showered mortar shells and machine gun fire into the barracks of the National Guard in San Salvador.

Ten soldiers and officers were killed and 37 were wounded.

These were the first attacks on a major military installation in the capital since the 1981 General Offensive,

A few weeks earlier, guerrilla forces had carried out three successive attacks on a key army communications centre on Aguacate Hill in the East, and had partly destroyed the 4th Brigade barracks at El Paraiso in the North.

This was the third attack on these barracks in recent years, and the third time the attack had started on the inside, with supporters amongst conscripted soldiers opening the gates to let the guerrillas in.

The FMLN claimed 450 army casualties. The US State Department admitted, for the first time, that US military “advisers” had been caught up in the action and “had to defend themselves”.

Gis Oi

November.

- Below, ANNA WAGSTAFF examines the results in the Israeli General Elections held at the beginning of

In the next issue of Briefing we'll be looking at the —for Palestinians, Zionists, and

anti-Zionists in Britain — of the major decisions made ~ at the recent meeting in Algiers of the Palestine

National Council.

months into the in-

few among the Israeli electorate believed, as they went to the polls, that “carrying on as normal” was any longer an option in the nied Territories.

Western media commentators predicted that Israelis would make a clear choice between the “security through peace” offered by the Israeli Labour Party and the “peace through security” offered by Shamir’s Likud.

But in the end, the most significant change was a sizeable increase in the vote for the ultraorthodox religious parties.

By Jim Thain Year of Action Committee

The trendy left activist may now buy. Troops Out without compromising her/his aesthetic sensibilities. Always informative, the magazine's new format ensures It looks good too. Inside, the political directionremains as clear as ever. A welcome innovation is the historical series “Roots of Irish Resistance”. In Vol. 12, Issue 1, Peter Beresford Ellis's theme is imperialism's systematic denigration of conquered civilisations.

t § ' 3 { i" t

British withdrawal

"gives the true

‘Their success was based on the combination of a long-term trend in Israel towards racism and religious fundamentalism (inevitable in a state defining itself on a religious/racial basis) and an unprecedented tum-out of the orthodox vote, due mainly to intense competition between the religious parties themselves.

The only other observable trend in the voting was a slight polarisation away from both Labour and Likud toward, on the one hand, the more hardline Zionist parties (including the newly formed Modelit which won two seats on a platform of “transfer” of the Palestinian

—~New-look mag

He describes the cultural excellence of early mediaeval Irish civilisation; of Macbeth; and outlines the conflict between Celtic primitive communism and Anglo-Norman feudalism.

In Issue 2; Jan Davies details the subjugation of Ireland in the 16-17th centuries through the “plantation” of loyal settlers, the growth of religious sectarianism, and Cromwell's excesses.

Other excellent items include David Leadbetter on the Gibraltar inquest (Issue 2) and Geoff Bell’s overview of the formation and charaoter of the gerrymandered six county statelet.

This year, a subscription is essential.

TWENTY YEARS ON

March for _| withdrawal!

from Ireland!

Demonstrate — Saturday January 28th ©Grange Park, Kilburn, London

On January 30th, 1972, 14 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead by British soldiers in Derry. They were marching for justice and an end to discrimination. Their demands have still not been met.

Twenty years after British troops were sent to the North of Ireland, the Nationalist community in the six

counties suffers the worst

Bg

poverty, unemployment,

and housing conditions in Europe. ritish state’s only answer: shoot-to-kill, PTA, w-jury trials, innumerable imprisonments.

= | | The national demonstration in Kilburn, London, on _ © January 28th is being called by IBRG, Troops Out, LWi, Irish Sections, and Women and Ireland Network. =4 Labour Briefing has decided to become a sponsor of 4A. the march. Why not help us defray the £25 cost? Please send us donations at PO Box 457, London

SW2 5UZ.

Saige | we raise above the £25 will go straight to q march funds.

Labour Briefing No. 73 November 23rd-December 6th Page 15

Israeli Elections

population from the Occupied

Territories) and, on the other,

the pro-democratic “nonZionist” and “Arab” parties. To an increasing number of Israelis, neither Labour nor Likud appear to have any new answers to the key questions. Both offered “more of the

position to giving back the West Bank and Gaza, dismantling the settlements, recognition of the PLO, and his professed commitment to a negotiated peace did not escape the electorate. Nor were they impressed by Shamir’s notion of crushing the Palestinians first, and negotiating with them after. The only point that really ted the hard-line Zionist parties from Likud was their insistence on annexation of the Occupied Territories, which would still leave unanswered the question of the rebelling

population. x Only Modelit, with its policy

of “transfer”, really attempted to answer that question.

But there was one choice denied to the hard-line Zionists. Kach, which has long cam-

standing, ostensibly on the grounds that it is racist.

Had. it stood, it might well have increased its number of seats from one to seven, making it the third largest single party in the Knesset.

At the other end of the spectrum, the electorate could choose between several “nonZionist” pasties:

Hadash (the electoral front led by the pro-Moscow Israeli Communist Pasty, which has a two-state position and gets.support mainly on the basis of its defence of “Isracli-Arab” rights);

*the Progressive List for Peace (fighting its third election with politics similar to Hadash, but without the communism);

sthe Democratic Arab Party (recently launched by one of the few leading Palestinian figures formerly in the Israeli Labour Party);

sand the Citizens Rights Movement (an alliance based on defence of democratic rights, including women’s and Arab rights, and separation of religion from state). _

‘The first three are perceived as almost irrelevant by the vast majority of the Jewish Israeli electorate. They present themselves as vehicles for increasing “Arab” influence within the confines of the sectarian political consensus, rather than a political force for overcoming that sectarianism.

‘Their campaigns were aimed at securing the highest share of the “Arab” vote rather than making any inroads into the Jewish vote.

The two extra seats they

gained result from the higher } _ than normal turnout among | * Palestinians, plus a decline in

voting on the basis of patronage — which traditionally has secured many Zionist parties, including Likud, a share of the “Arab” vote.

‘The Citizens’ Rights Movement picked up votes from Jewish layers radicalised by the

‘The gap between Peres’s op-

intifada or fearful of the grow-

International Briefing

‘No Answers to the Intifada

Picketing the “Heart of Israel” exhibition, last month at Alexandra Palace, North London

-~ ing power of the ultra-right or-

thodox. But as a single issue democratic rights lobby, it is unable to offeracoherent response to the crisis into which the intifada has plunged Israel.

‘The intifada has now created conditions in which the majority of Israelis may start questioning what it is they are defending and at what price. What is needed is’a political leadership capable of taking the intifada’s call for Palestinian liberation into the heart of Israel.

‘The call needs taking not

“only into protests against the

brutality of the occupation, or into groups promoting “JewishArab” friendship, but also into the wave of strikes in the Israeli health service (provoked by a desperate shortage of funds directly attributable to the costs

of putting down the intifada), ' into Sephadi (“oriental” Jewish) groups organising to fight the racism they face from Ashkenazim (white-westem Jew: and indeed into those economically deprived “development towns”, where the right wing Kach has built a base among Sephardi youth, virtually unchallenged.

In short, a leadership that could use the strength of the intifadato blow apart all the many contradictions in the Zionist state, which could convince many Israeli Jews that their future does not lie in continuing to oppress and exploit Palestinians.

Such leadership might have come from the Abra al Balad, the only Palestinian movement within Israel with a class-based, anti-Zionist programme, which, has played a leading role in or-

ganising solidarity with the intifada among Palestinians

In the election, the Abra al Balad argued, unsuccessfully, for abstention.

The newly-formed “Democratic Secular Movement” will now try to harness Jewish anti-Zionist forces along with the most radical section of the Palestinian movement, principally the Abra al Balad, and carry out the political campaigning work necessary (in combination, of course, with the intifada) to make inroads into mainstream Jewish opinion.

The current political line-up has little to offer the majority of Israelis — Jewish or Palestinian. The need to build a mass

ition movement — with withdrawal form the Occupied Territories as a key demand — has never been more urgent.

NICARAGUAN HURRICANE

This is Bluefields, on Nicaragua's west coast, ravaged by Hurricane Joan.

The damage left in its wake, coming on top of eight yous of Rea nsored: a will take an

estimated 30 years to repair — and millions of pounds.

The British government has sent a measly £10,000 to Nicaragua for hurricane relief. The Nicaragua Solidarity Campaign, in

contrast, has already collected £90,000. Much more is needed ntly. Send donations to iC, 23 Bevenden Street, London N1 6BH or call 01-253 0246.

Labour Councils

deliver Tory goods

The last Briefing article I wroteon Poll Tax wascited in the press by Gerald Hartup (of the right wing Freedom Association) to prove that the Poll Tax campaign is dead.

By Greg Tucker Lambeth Councillor

—_—_————— He praises the Labour Party for providing the

corpse.

He may be right about the Labour leadership’s intentions but there is a long way yet before the campaign can be written off.

Abstract campaigns against “a bad thing” now have the task of responding to reality: Councils are gearing themselves up for actual implementation south of the border.

Far from being over, our campaign is only just beginning.

Unfortunately, nearly all Labour Councils seem to agree with Hartup. Giving a lead in this is Margaret Hodge of Islington who has ordered the Local Government Information Unit to stop producing anti-Poll Tax material.

Flocked

‘Two weeks ago, Councillors flocked to a Poll Tax Trade Fair in Birmingham, where they could see computer systems in action and compare notes on the best ways of drawing up the register and collecting the Tax.

Whilst Dick Knowles, Birmingham Council leader, used the opportunity for a ritual denunciation of the Tax, but Jack Layden of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities gave the game away.

“The AMA is co-operating because there is no choice but to implement the Tax as efficiently, effectively, and humanely as possible,” he said. ,

Bailiffs

How humanely was explained by the firms of bailiffs touting for work at the Trade Fair. They admitted, “We are going to have to take on a lot of extra people to cope with the extra work.”

Even the minimal “humane implementation” strategy adopted by Labour Con-

ference is too radical for most Councils. Brighton Labour Group have refused to discuss whether to write off debts caused by non-payment, despite the fact that such write-offs were the one concrete commitment given in the NEC statement to Conference.

Even requests to use separate offices and different notepaper have fallen on deaf ears. At least one Labour Council has gone on record: 3 that it wants to get the credit for being: efficientin collecting | the Tax, and therefore willl make sure that its links are highlighted, not hidden.

Dogged

The dismal pattern of dogged implementation seen amongst Labour Coundils in Scotland may be about to be repeated in England and Wales. But that is no reason to give up. We must continue to demand that Councils refuse to enforce the Tax.

Already, many local Labour Parties are supporting a non-implementation strategy. Council unions at Jocal level can be won to nonco-operation, going much fur: ther than the feeble “opposition” coming from their Head Offices. iat

Here in Lambeth the Poll Tax Campaign has been able to convince two of the three CLPs that the Council should refuse to co-operate with the Tax. A lobby of the Council has been held to increase the

ure on Councillors.

The Council leadership is currently trying to recruit Poll Tax staff, though a full discussion on Council strategy has yet to take place in the Labour Group.

Welcomed

Initially Lambeth NALGO officers had welcomed the extra jobs on offer for Poll Tax implementation. Now a Branch meeting has overwhelmingly agreed a resolution (put jointly by Briefing and SWP supporters) to boycott any new posts and to call on existing staff to refuse to co-operate with the registration process.

NALGOactivistsin the Poll ‘Tax Campaign have set themselves the task of ensuring that the boycott is enforced and that work is done throughout the Council to prevent any Council worker from unwittingly aiding the

Stop Press: Lambeth Labour Group has now agreed not to implement the Poll Tax. By a majority of two to one the Group agreed “To

cease implementing Poll Tax legislation and consider all actions that can be taken by the

All over England and Wales groups. are springing up in opposition to the Poll Tax.

In Scotland, as fines for non-registration go out, and Labour's failure to take a stand results in defeat in Govan, the mass campaign continues.

That is why the Socialist Conference is hosting the Conference in Newcastle on December 10th, to bring together all those already involved in fighting this iniquity, as well as to convince sceptics that opposition to the Tax must be a centrepiece in the fight against Thatcher.

The movement against the Tax in England and Wales is still young. It would be wrong at this stage to impose rigid structures on it.

In this context it seems unfortunate that a conference has been called in Oxford on November 27th which proposes to do just that.

The Conference agenda

setting up of the register.

consists more.or less en-

rights and the working class.

Hackney, one of Britain’s poorest Boroughs, will be faced with one of the highest

‘The Poll Tax will hit hardest in the inner city — and ethnic minorities will suffer most.

That was the message heard by 400 people, including 100 Turkish workers, at 2 rally organised by Hackney Against the Poll Tax (HAPT) on November 9th.

By Sam Silverlock Hackney North & Stoke Newington CLP

—_—_—_—_————— Olcay Aniker, from the Turkish community association (Halkevi) detailed how the “community charge” will be a devastating blow to large families and households, particularly to Hackney’s Turkish and other ethnic minority communities.

There were Turkish translations of all speeches.

Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, situated the Poll ‘Taxas part ofa much broader

Poll Tax bills; £347 in 1980, rising to £578 by 1994 (based on 1988 spending figures).

Dudley Dryden, from the Council for Racial

Equality, slammed Neil Kinnock and the Labour Leadership for failing to lead a fight

against the Tax. The trade

union dimension of the cam-

paign was emphasised by Ian Charlton from Hackney NALGO.

Speaking for HAPT, Len Lucas said that the campaign aimed to unite all those wanting to fight the Poll Tax and did not have a policy of advocating any tactic of struggle. But he stressed that those who refused to pay should be supported.

HAPT meets on the third Tuesday of every month at 8pm at the Fire Station Community Centre, 61 Leswin Road, London N16 and can be contacted c/o P. Logan, 104 Amburst Road, London E8

Tory attack on democratic 2A\

Lambeth Against the Poll Tax demonstration, October 22nd

The North-East

‘Council not to co-operate over the Poll Tax.”

With the Council’s LCC Leadership voting against this line the fight in the Group now will be to force them to

put Group policy into position.

tirely of discussion about setting up a national co-ordinating committee with members elected from a national conference.

This opportunity would be better spent exchanging ideas and experiences about building campaigns against the Tax.

By Terry Conway Islington North CLP

—_——_—_—

The Conference will consist of one representative from each of the groups, or potential groups, that have been mailed, but will decide the future form into which other activists —not yet involved — will be expected to fit.

The proposals were only received by groups three weeks before the Conference — hardly time enough to consult. Finally, it appears that a conference which will not include any representation from Scotland will decide to exclude Scotland from

The Northern Region of the TUC has finally been goaded into action over

the Poll Tax. They organised a Conference

on November 12th in Gateshead. j

———_—_$_———$—————

By Julie Jeavons

University Labour

Club ——

From the start they made it clear that they did not want to organise a campaign — but since no one else was doing it, they felt obliged to start the ball rolling.

Obviously they haven't noticed the Anti-Poll Tax unions which have been

its structures.

lf those involved in setting up the Oxford Conference are worried about the Socialist Conference monopolising the movement against the Poll Tax, their fears are unfounded.

There has never been a

ion by anyone involved in the Socialist Conference that we were trying to control or dominate such a movement. many forces are involved in campaigns against the Tax who donot define themselves as socialists, and this is one of the movement's strengths.

Obviously, there will be differences about tactics and strategy among socialists and between

starting up all over the area over the last few months. Tony Christopher, President of the TUC, set the fone in his opening | speech. He said “The only way to get rid of the PollTax Is to vote it out,” adding that non payment and

non collection were not o|

expect froma taxman?

Thankfully, many delegates disagreed with Christopher — and said so, both in the main session and in the workshops, against the efforts of some well briefed workshop chairs.

Alas, there was no time for discussion at the end (surprise, surprise) so workshop reports urging — were left up in the air.

8Conferences in Oxford and Newcastle

Room for everyone!

socialists and other forces, but this does not mean that people should be excluded or their participation met by sectarian hostility.

Briefing supporters will argue that part of what should come out of the Newcastle Conference is a callto all forces involved in fighting the Poll Tax for a national meeting in the Spring to discuss developing national co-ordination and ongoing exchange of ideas and information.

We need a united massmovement against the Poll, Tax and appeal to everyone at the Oxford Conference to come to Newcastle and work

togethertosink Thatcher's __

flagship.

OXFORD AGAINST THE POLL TAX ce National Gathering of Local Poll Tax Campaigns: é

Sunday November 27th 10am to 4pm 3

Oxford Town Halt Registration fee £4

Details from Oxford Agal

inst the Poll Tax, 10 Chapel Street, Oxford OX4 1XL (phone Oxford 728647) =