Interview with Eric Heffer
ERIC HEFFER has been one of the champions of the left of the Parliamentary Labour Party since 1964, and has recently been an outspoken critic of the witch hunt and the move to the right. JANE KELLY and DAVE PACKER spoke to him. What do you think of the new Freedom and Fairness' campaign launched by the party Icadership? I went to the launch of the campaign, because l'd read various newspaperreports saying that we were dropping our historical red flag, and our party emblem and at the annual conference we were going to stop calling one another 'comrades' and so on. I was assured that the campaign logo was just for this campaign, and all this wasn't truc.
I watched the party political broadcast on the Fairness and Freedom' theme by Neil Kinnock and John Cunningham. I don't think anyone could disagree with what they said, it was what was not said that is important. What'star more important than that campaign is tor us to press home our basic socialist policies. More to the point than a slick campaign is what sort of policies we're going to campaign on up to the next election. So what do you think those policies should be? I think that we have to say clearly that the issue now, to solve the problems of unemployment, poverty and the threat of war is a clear socialist alternative. That doesn't just mean more investment in the construction industry and so on — you need that, but you also haveto have atotally different approach. We've got totalk about control of the cconomy, about extending public ownership, about planning the resources of the nation. We have to arguefor self-management by the workers in industry. We haveto argue not just for the removal of all American nuclear bases, we have to argue for the removal of all American bases. Wehaveto talk in terms of eventually getting ourselves out of NATO. Wehaveto push for nuclcar energy to be replaced in time by other forms of energy. We've got to argue for proper conservationist policies.
Now we've heard a lot about the necessity of Labour being a 'party ot production' Well I never thought we were anything else! The question we have to ask is production I• for what'— production for use, or
'All left wing comrades Carios Guarita Refie: production for profit? And all those people who've argued over the years that the choice is "socialism or barbarism' are right. The current alternative is socialism or destruction. I don't believe that you lose votes if you tell that to the people, I think you lose votes if you pretend to be something that you're not. What role do you think the Campaign Group ought to play? Well the Campaign Group is doing quite a good job, introducing a series of Bills in parliament. They've no hope of being passed of course, they're propaganda measures. But I think wenught to do far more than that. I've thought for sometime we ought to pick out debates and get all our people in there arguing for a socialist line of action. We used to say this in the carly Tribune group. But the Tribune group in this House is not the Tribune group that was. Wehaven't quite latched on to the importance of using parliament as a propaganda platformn.
In the country wedefinitely ought to do morethan we've done, and I'm going to advocate that there should be a series of big mectings organised by the Campaign Group with people like mysclf, Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner speaking, to show a presence and argue for socialist policies. So you think it should be more than a parliamentary caucus? Well I think it should be in essence a parliamentary caucus, but it's got to have its roots throughout theentire country. That's increasingly happening. Weshould coordinate the left in the party far more, and that would, Lassume, include a variety of groups and tendencies, aslong asthey were gencrally on the left. I think if we fail to do it
it will be very serious for the party in the long run.
You know there are people who say that we shouldn't do anything until the general clection, and then after the clection we'll all come out from our little holes and fight for socialist policies. Well I don't think we're going to win unless we fight now for socialist policies. How do you see the refusal of people like Blunkett and Meacher on the NEC to support the minority in the battle against the witch hunt? Well they're contradictory. On the general principle of the witch hunt they seem to be going along with the majority of the NEC. But on the specific questions, like whether Pat Wall should be endorsed as a candidate or not, they voted the other way. But I have to tell you, and I'll be quite blunt about it, the people you mention are a great disappointment to me. Once again I've seen people come onto the NEC, and I've seen it in the past in parliament, with great left wing reputations and within a short period of time they've abandoned their positions.
Since I rejoined the Labour Party l've never considered myself to be on the 'ultra left' of the party. But I've had a left position and I've maintained my position, and simply because of that I'm characterised as part of the 'ultra-left'. Well so be it. I just believe that all left wing comrades in the party have a right to be in the party. If you don't agree with them, you argue against them politically, and try to outvote them. But you don't say one thing one year and when you get a position of responsibility turn your back on all your basic ideas — for purely opportunistic reasons and in some cases undoubtedly for reasons of personal advancement. If you do that there's no future for any movement, certainly not for the Labour Party. The pressure on the left to fall into line and no rock the boat is very great. It is creating a drift to the right. Do you think this is going to continue? I think we are in for a difficult period, and this year's conterence is going to be a difficult one. Some people on the NEC might not maintain their position. But I'm encouraged that in the constituency parties there is a lot of unease and concern at rightward developments.
I've been in Parliament for 21 years, and I'vealways taken a view that if you have to differentiate yourself from the party leader on a particular issue, then you should do so. It's the correct thing to do, it's the moral thing to do. It you disagree and you keep your mouth shut, then you're saying that
INTERNATONAL No. 4. May/une 1986
vou'll go along with things you know to be wrong. And I don't believe that because the Icader is Neil Kinnock, or because we suffered a terrible defeat in the last election, 21309 which wasn't the fault of the left lau incidentally, weshould keep quiet, forget everything, kcep your trap shut, don't opposethings that are wrong, just hide away -- well it's wrong! I'veread that Ken F-1/5 Livingstone has made this kind of statement. Wellit's opportunist and tundamentally wrong. You'll see when my book comes our that I haven't pulled any punches about what I think, or where the party should be going. Itthere's a hung parliament, what should Labourdo? Tomorro I think it's quite clear. If weare the largest party we should take control, pick out socialist policies that are popular, let ourselves be deleared in parliament on them, Cruise and go foranother election. If you make deals with the other parties you get sullied by them and in theend they win and vou lose. Neart 70 percent of the population were against theraidson Libra. But in Labour's opposition the leadership has not raised the question of NATO. What do ou think of this? Ithink it's very interesting that opposition to the bases is much more credible to thepcople than it washbetore. A lot ol people now see what we'rearguingabout, whereas before it often seemed like a theoretical question. To that extent I think the party's position about thebases has been more credible. But the party position is a compromise because there are some people on the right who don't want us to get rid of the bases without nuclear weaponsand who now see that it's popular.
I had a discussion with an old Tribunc comrade who is in the shadow cabinet, who I'm still friendly with, although we don't ser ere toave on political issucs any more, and he said that he wassorry to hear moraise the question of getting nd ot all bases, because that only gavepcoplelike Dennis lealev the chance to raise support for nuclear weapons. I said no, they'll say people like me are on the looncy left, but at least we'll be locked into. pledgeto get rid of nuclearbases. The more wedemand, the more policy will be accepted, and we still have the opportunity to argue tor what is necessary - getting rid of all bases and out of NATO.
I'm more convinced than ever that when Tony Benn and I put forward our paper against NATO to the NEe, which was immediately rejected, nevertheless it was d correct thing todo, and that opposition to NATe will grow. The Scottish TUC has gone onrecord against all bases, Iregard that as a very important step forward.
No. d. Mayilune: 1'980:
Wendy Savage case An Enquiry into women's rights
The