Kinnock's right turn
IF LAST YEAR'S Labour Party conference was dominated by the miners' strike, this year's was the conference of the defeat of the miners' strike. In 1984 the hard left of the Party was riding high on the flood tide of the miners' struggle. Scargill, not Kinnock, was the 'star'. This year the 'Benn-Scargill' left was relatively isolated as Kinnock made full use of the opportunity to launch his own particular brand of 'new realism'.
The essence of Kinnock's strategy was to appeal over the heads of the conference to the ruling class, the establishment and sections of the middle class. He aimed to convince them, or rather to begin the task of convincing them, that Labour was now fit to govern.
It was certainly a 'realistic" electoral strategy, but one which denied that there was any realism in what the left of the party was doing. Contained in it was a stark and simple message: defence of jobs and services, opposition to Tory policies and, above all, struggle, do not pay on the electoral front. The left has to answer Kinnock on this terrain as well.
Kinnock's intervention in the miners' debate and against Liverpool City Council was nothing if not calculated and stagemanaged. In the miners' debate no less than three general secretaries were called - Eric Hammond, David Basnett and Gavin Laird. This debate was designed not so much to win the vote against the NUM - defeat on this had already been conceded by the Kinnock camp - but to give the impression of a strong leader who would defy the Party and union activists.
In the Liverpool debate Kinnock was able to use the left's weak point - the absurd decision by the Militant-led City Council to sack its workforce - to ram home his attack. But if some left-wing delegates enjoyed the attack on Militant they were foolish and mistaken: Kinnock was attacking the left as a whole. And it has to be said that despite the errors of judgement and leadership by Liverpool City Council, the very fact that it is now in confrontation with the government is due to the determination of the Militant councillors to refuse to back down on jobs and services - something achieved nowhere else except in Lambeth. When Kinnock attacked Liverpool he was attacking the very notion of militant struggle against Toryism.
While Kinnock was giving notice of his intention to sanitise the party by isolating and defeating the left, his right-wing offensive has of course not yet been able to sweep all before it: •we are still in the very early stages of open right-wing domination. Thus Kinnock lost on the miners' motion and the motion on lesbian and gay rights was carried. Although the motion on women's representation inside the party was lost, the motion on women's reproductive rights succeeded. And again, although the motion on black sections was defeated by the trade union block vote, it won three times as many votes this year as last year. Equally, there was no right-wing breakthrough at NEC level, although David Blunkett replaced Tony Benn at the top of the constituency section, which reflected the mood in the constituencies.
There should be no illusions that Kinnock did not enjoy massive support, even among the constituencies. Although International, No. l. November/December 1985
international UPFRONT
A New Partnership DUDUSTR A New Britain Augusto Guarita/Reflex Carlos Willis and Kinnock — a partnership for capital many constituency delegates joined Eric Heffer's walkout, more stood to give Kinnock a standing ovation. His shift to the right has dragged important parts of the 'soft left' with it. Thus the relaunched Tribune, soft left 'stars" like Blunkett and Livingstone, and after an initial hiccup the Labour Co-ordinating Committee, all went to the right with Kinnock.
However, far from having captured Kinnock politically, the soft left are now in his pocket. In a previous phase the soft left were able to have influence by acting as a bridge between Kinnock and the left, adjudicating in the middle. Now the bridge has been kicked away. They have had to go with one side or the other and they have made their choice.
As noted above, the 'hard left', represented by the Campaign Group of MPs, the NUM, black sections and the Labour Left Co-ordination, found themselves relatively isolated this year. While some victories were achieved, they were in the main on the defensive.
It seems certain that the right wing will utilise this situation to deepen the witch hunt against the left, starting with the Militant. Militant have had nearly 20 supporters expelled over the last year. There will be more to come. Despite all our differences with Militant and its sectarian stance, defence of their democratic rights must be high on the agenda of the left. 3
•.. what future for the
oftentetn
It was perhaps inevitable that the defeat of the miners should produce a shift to the right in the labour movement. But how should the "Benn-Scargill" left respond? Certainly not by taking the advice given in the SWP's second 'Open Letter' to the Militant where the whole left is invited to evacuate the Labour Party forthwith. That, whatever the comrades' intentions, would be doing Kinnock's work for him.
Certainly the hard left still has large reserves of support, as the large amnesty meeting organised by Trade Union Briefing and the Campaign Group, and the Labour Herald and Labour Left Co-ordination meetings showed. Even if the drift to the right is continued between now and the general election, the hard left can show that an alternative exists and prepare for the breaking of the logjam which the election will certainly bring.
First and foremost, the hard left must challenge the notion that only Kinnock's strategy can be electorally successful. A campaign on socialist policies, backed by a united party, and reaching out to all those hit by Toryism - including the black population, women, sections of the middle class as well as the mass of industrial workers - could win massive support. The election result of 1983, a freak caused in part by the Falklands war, would not be repeated.
At the same time the hard left has to stand its ground politically. It has to reach out to other forces in the labour movement and beyond in order to organise joint campaigns in support of every group of workers and every other oppressed group in struggle against the Tories. It also has to link up with those fighting on particular issues and policies.
Those on the hard left must strengthen, too, their own stand on policy and take their own campaign initiatives. This is particularly true on economic policy, where nationalisation of