Labour's witch-hunt escalates
by Pete Firmin (vice-chair, End the Ban) Recent months have seen a new surge of attacks on the left in the Labour Party. The proscription of the All-Britain Anti-Poll Tax Federation, expulsion of coun cillors from Labour Groups for their refusal to support the Poll Tax and rent rises, further expulsions of Militant supporters, tacit support for the attacks on Arthur Scargill led by the Daily Mirror, and the proscription of Socialist Organiser are the best-known examples.
There is a common strand to all aspects of the witch-hunt going beyond the arbitrariness of singling out particular "tendencies' (Socialist Organiser, Militant) and not others or the vindictiveness of local right-wingers, who feel they have been given the green light by the activities of the national bureaucracy.
In addition to wanting to prove to the ruling class and its mouthpiece, the media, that the Labour Party's policies are an asset, not a threat, Kinnock wants to show that he can deal with any opposition to those policies. Thus, we have action against those who stand in the way of promoting Labour's "responsible' image (in particular those prepared to fight the Poll Tax rather than simply say how nasty it is) and attempts to eliminate potential opponents of a Labour goverment's austerity programme.
In his speech to this year's TUC, Kinnock made clear that a government led by him will not be one from which the working class can expect favours" (they will be reserved for the ruling class).
Far from favours, he knows (and the vote at the TUC to drop calls for the repeal of the anti-union laws is further evidence) that there will be conflict with the working class. Retaining the Tories' anti-union laws and abolishing the block vote at Labour Party conference are intended both to help a Labour government defeat the unions when such conflict comes, and to prevent any revolt reaching into the Labour Party itself.
Robert Maxwell doesn't need any direct encouragement from Kinnock to conduct his campaign against Scargill (in which the "charges" have changed several times as each has been disproved). Both Maxwell and KinSOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990
FEATURES nock want to erase the memory of the miners' strike as one of the greatest anti-Tory battles: but they also want to see Scargill removed as a possible focus for the left of the trade union movement against a Labour government. Organisations on the left of the party are also seen as a possible future focus for that opposition, just as they were during the Wilson and Callaghan govemments of 1974-79 and afterwards.
This renewed escalation of the witch-hunt coincides with the run-up to the next general clection, with Kinnock trying to make the final adjustments to both policy and organisation. It runs alongside the proposals to do away with the automatic right to reselection of MPs, the introduction of one member, one vote (ie. the abolition of delegate democracy), and possibly postal ballots for virtually all decisions, as well as proposals to reduce the influence of Party conference on policy.
Only for a short period in Labour's history, from the mid-70s to 1982, did a relatively relaxed internal regime exist without the threat of proscriptions and expulsions. This all changed with the expulsion of the editorial board of Militant in 1982. Since then there has been a steady stream of expulsions, suspension of District and Constituency Labour Parties etc, together with the destruction of the Young Socialists, the attacks on women's organisation and the refusal to recognise any kind of black self-organisation. Throughout this period the left has been unable to provide a common defence against such attacks for several reasons.
The response to the first witch-hunt (of the Militant Editorial Board) was strong, but weakened in two crucial respects. Most important was the unwillingness of Militant to build a common campaign with all of the left against the witch-hunt. Instead it chose to conduct its own campaign, solely as a Militant promotion exercise, with the result that it alienated many of those initially willing to defend it.
Another problem was the refusal of sec-
WHY PAY TO SUBSIDISE THE RICH? ME PAY? NO WAY! John Harris (NUJ) Labour's witch-hunt is attacking poll tax activists tions of the left (such as the leadership of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy) to recognise that registration was being introduced as a device to attack Militant, and that therefore a united rejection was required by the left. The fact that CLPD decided to apply for registration left Militant exposed.
Militant supporters later chose to appeal to the courts (as their only course of action) to prevent them being expelled. This was futile in its results, and politically wrong (how can an organisation seriously oppose the interference of the courts into the affairs of the unions but encourage the same interference into the Labour Party?). They dropped any attempt to campaign against the witch-hunt, which left those still willing to fight it doing so on their behalf, without their backing.
At the same time a response developed among sections of the left of distancing itself from defence of Militant by means of spurious political arguments, while defending other victims of the witch-hunt. it was claimed that Militant weren't really part of the Left because of their attitude to Black Sections, women's sections and their policy on Ireland, as if these weaknesses were the reason the bureaucracy was attacking them.
Thus much of the left moved away from a principled position of solidarity against attack by the bureaucracy to a selective approach of only defending those with whom they had more common ground - with the result that
Page 5
the defence against any witch-hunt was weakened.
The result of this weakness is a much greater confidence of the bureaucracy to go on the attack, in the knowledge that there will be hardly any resistance. For several years the NEC report to Labour conference has con tained long lists of those expelled, with little or no opposition expressed.
The proposal to proscribe Socialist Organiser arose out of the Birkenhead selection saga. When Frank Field, a right-wing maverick who has been a thorn in the flesh of the Merseyside labour movement for years, was deselected by Birkenhead CLP he lashed out with a scurrilous "dossier" and threatened to stand as an independent against Labour.
The protection of sitting MPs being dear to the heart of Walworth Road, it took this catalogue of gossip, innuendo and half-truths seriously. Although not denying that selection had been run completely in accordance with the rules, they decided to use the opportunity for a new purge of the Left and re-run the selection, giving Field another chance.
Amongst other things, Field's "dossier" named Militant supporters in Birkenhead and pointed to the influence of Socialist Organiser in neighbouring Wallasey. Field had previously excelled himself by calling on people not to vote Labour in Wallascy in the 1987 general election because the candidate was the (then) Socialist Organiser supporter Loi Duffy.
The Militant supporters in Birkenhead are innock in the process of being expelled and Labour's organisation department took the opportunity to produce their own 'report on Socialist Organiser.
Yet Socialisr Organiser itself was never once contacted to discuss this and letters and phone calls were never responded to. When an issue of Socialist Organiser showed this report to be a fabrication, the report was drastically changed, and a new one submitted to the NEC
With virtually no discussion, the NEC in July then endorsed the proposal that Socialist Organiser be proscribed as a 'party within a party". The fact that the Walworth Road bureaucrats didn't feel it necessary to go through even a pretence of allowing Socialist Organiser to answer the allegations shows how confident they felt about the left's response.
Particularly sickening throughout the whole episode has been the response of the "soft left". David Blunkett said in advance of the NEC meeting that he would want to hear the evidence before reaching a conclusion; yet he and other members of the soft left on Labour's NEC left before the decision on Socialist Organiser. One of them, Clare Short, has since gone into print in Tribune, defending the proscription. In this, Short is continuing a dishonourable record of the soft left over many years and witch-hunts. Page 6
FEATURES
A beacon of principled light in this has been the attitude of Phil Kelly, the editor of Tribune, who has come out strongly against this witch-hunt. Speaking at the "End the Ban' rally on September Ist, he made it clear that he sees no contradiction between defence of Socialist Organiser and opposition to many of its policies, such as non-payment of the Poll Tax.
The 'End the Ban' committee was set up to organise a broad defence campaign and publicise the case against the proscription of The ideas 'he ideas Kinnock wants to ants to
silence lence Phil Kelly: speaking at the End the Ban rally Socialist Organiser. Labour Party Socialists, Women for Socialism, Labour Briefing and Socialist Outlook have supported it from the beginning. The attitude of others has been less encouraging.
Campaign for Labour Party Democracy (CLPD) essentially made conditions for its participation - the dissolution of the Socialist Organiser Alliance, the admitted organisation of SO supporters, and a policy of not talking to the bourgeois media. Most other organisations of the left have yet to be seen to show any support.
Militant and Socialist Worker, for instance, have devoted many columns to the witch-hunt of councillors in Liverpool for opposing rent rises, but have not even mentioned the witchhunt against SO.
Motivated by sectarianism - political disagreement with Socialist Organiser and a reluctance to admit the existence of any/other organisations on the left in the Labour Party. this attitude weakens all of the left. Any successful witch-hunt is a defeat for democracy in the labour movement, strengthening the hold of the bureaucracy and weakening the ability
of the left to fight new realism. And, of course, it is a basic truism that the bureaucracy, once having tasted blood, moves on to attack other organisations.
"End the Ban" has managed to get the sup port of many in the labour movement, MPs, trades unionists (including the Bakers' Union executive) and individuals. Socialist Organiser has refused, rightly, to take the issue to the courts (although, given the lack of "natural justice", they would probably have a good case) and is concentrating on a campaign instead.
At a meeting on 18th August the Socialist Organiser Alliance reluctantly decided to disband in order to enable its members to retain Labour Party membership. "End the Ban" is now focussing on a campaign for emergency resolutions to Labour Party conference calling for no further disciplinary action in the light of this decision.
There is a good chance of getting many such resolutions passed, and although the chances of winning are slim, a sizable vote in support at conference could make bureaucracy think again about carrying this
Some on the left seem to think that Socialist Organiser has conceded an issue of principle by announcing the dissolution of it's organisation. There is no such principle. What would be unprincipled, however, is to make concessions on policy to avoid a witch-hunt.
Thus the argument by Socialist Organiser supporters that any kind of left campaign around the general election is out of the ques tion because of the witch-hunt seems to be an act of self-censorship. offering the bureaucracy precisely what it wants - the silencing of the left. The lack of serious campaigning by the left in the Labour Party (and Militant in particular) on the Poll Tax weakens our ability to resist the proscription of the All Britain anti-Poll Tax Federation.
A further worrying aspect of Socialist Organiser's defence is the way in which it has denied that the organisation was a 'Leninist sect", as claimed by Walworth Road. It has attempted to show how different it is to Militant in this respect, as if the bureaucracy were interested in the differences in democratic functioning of left groups. As if the bureaucracy had some basic understanding of or affection for democracy anyway! The effect of it appears to be saying "it was all right to witch-hunt Militant, they are a sect, but we
Fighting all aspects of the witch-hunt is an act of basic solidarity. Disagreements over policy should be taken up within this context. The immediate task is to maximise support against the witch-hunt of SO for Labour Party conference. Hopefully the left can go on from that to fight all witch-hunts, without selection. 'End the Ban' can be contacted do 12a Canonbury St, London NI 2TD. SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 27, October 1990
Off to market with the Tories: Labour goes