AFTER BEING stitched up by the Daily Mirror and the Cook Report, ARTHUR SCARGILL is now the victim of another vicious journalistic attack, the 'unauthorised biography' of labour correspondent Paul Routledge, who portrays Scargill as a power-crazed megalomaniac. Here we publish Scargill's first full-length interview since the defeat of the miners' struggle. This full-length version is published exlusively in Socialist Outlook, a shorter edited article recently appeared in Tribune. Interview by DAVE OSLER. SO THE Tories have come out of the pit closure crisis with more or less everything COMMENT they wanted, I ask Arthur Scargill, seated behind the formica table of a greasy spoon cafe near his London flat in the Barbican. "Yes", he replies. Stony silence. Try another tack.
What conclusions can be drawn, then? Although still hesitant over his words, Scargill is immediately more expansive: The Labour movement had the best opportunity in 50 years to transform not merely an industrial situation and win an important battle for workers in struggle, but an opportunity to change the goverment of the day.!
*If it had decided to call upon the British people to give expression to the outrage shown on the two days of action on the 2lst and 25th of October 1992, and take part in a 24-hour stop page, it could have reversed the pit closure programme. It would at the very least have resulted in heads rolling in central government, and possibly the government itself rolling out.' But it didn't. Chalk one up for the boss class? 'Not at all. Since last October this government has had to spend £450 million because of the resistance of the NUM.: The calculation runs as follows. The High Court ruling that the pit closure programme was unlawful and irrational meant that British Coal paid out wages and running costs for ten TUC and Labour leaders refused to follow Scargill's call for a 24-hour strike collieries that did not produce any coal. Then there was the cost of two one-day strikes in volving both British Coal and *If that money had been given to the ten pits, it woald have resulted in them being keptopen for at least 50 years. That demonstrates that it's an ideological and not a financial argument. It demonstrates the lengths to which the ruling class are prepared to go to try and defeat the NUM."
At first, Scargill insists that "the NUM could've done nothing other than what it did. It campaigned brilliantly, even our most ardent opponents concode that. The trade unions and 'It's well-known that Arthur Scargill advocated occupation of the pits, which wasn't backed up at the time by the NUM executive... the Labour Party, on the other hand, failed miserably. Instead of giving concrete support, and calling upon workers to take industrial action, they did nothing.
Contrast that with the call of the Liberal Democrats in April, when they were prepared to call upon the British people to participate in a 24-hour strike. Its shows how far to the Right the Labour Party's gone.
*In letters from the Trade Union Congress general secretary Norman Willis and from the Labour Party leader John Smith, all I goe was a negative response to my call for them to ask their affiliates to join a 24-hour During the campaign, Scargill publicly called for a South African-style one-day "stayaway' from work, a circumlocutron clearly designed to skirt Tory legislation banning secondary action. But did he ever campaign for a head-on one-day general strike?
Scargill says he used a delibcrately precise formulation, a day of action which would involve a stoppage of work for 24 hours", before the TUC general council: Those words were chosen carefully. You have to recognise that some unions would be prepared to advise members to stay away and join the demonstration for 24 hours while other unions slavishly ad. here to ine tony keystaton and ballot their members. That's a matter for them. The object of the exercise was to try and get workers to stop work, and eveWhen I talked about people power in Hyde Park, I wasn't referring to marching around London or linking arms with the Church. was talking about bringing workcis out on the The trouble with the Labour Party leader. ship and the trade union leadership, they're quite willing to applaud millions on the streets of the Philippines or in Eastern Europe, without understanding tric neca to also produce mil lions of people on the streets of Britain. When it does happen, 250,000 marched last October, but not John Smith like in the poll tax campaign, the first thing the Labour leadership does is to condemn it."
There must have been debates on strategy on the NUM executive. Scargill is angry at what he sees as an implied attack: "Well, if you can criticise the strategy, I'd be delighted to hear...' surely other ideas were floated?
"You have to understand that in October last year, the NUM members, had they been consulted about industrial action, may not have supported that call. But by the time that the ballot did take place, it was victory to win 60 percent of them for industrial action.
"That wasn't achieved by just calling upon them to do something, it was the result of a massive campaign. We marched further than Mao Tse Tung on his long march, we've been involved with so many churches that I've been offered the Bishop of Durham's job when he retires. Yet what you need is not marches, demonstrations. rallies or wide associations, all of them important. What you need is direct action. The sooner people understand that, the sooner we'll begin the change things:' Focus for solidarity Wouldn't the occupation of one or more threatened colliery. not by three or four supporters of Women Against Pit Closures but by the workforce itself, have created a focus for nationwide Labour movement solidarity? tion that the NUM line was completely perfect: 'It's well-known that Arthur Scargill advocated occupation of the pits, time by the executive committee. As a consequence the campaign that was adopted was put into play.
Scargill is insistent that trade unionism will continue to be a force in the mining inducty There's a feeling that strength is determined by the size of a union. That clearly is nonsense.
talking about marching round London or linking arms with the church. I was talking about bringing workers out on the streets of Britain.' When the NUM had over a million members, it was at its weakest industrially and politically. It won is groacs victories wich it had less than 300,000 members, in 1972 and 1974.' "In 1984, the miners' union, which was down to about 180.00. was able to sustain a national industrial dispute for one year and four months, he argues, dating the start of action o the commencement of an overtime ban.
"Today, we've got about 30,000 mineworkers in Britain. and yet the production is heavily concentrated in one-coalface pits. One coallace operates where i previously there would be eight.' In some cases, Scargill points out, as much as £100 million can be invested in one production unit: If you stop that unit operating. it's the same impact as stopping 20 pits, say, 10 or 15 years ago. All too often unionists, underestimate the economic strength that they have.' £2 billion cost *British Coal and British Rail both admit that each of the one-day strikes cost them £10 million per day. That's £40 million.' Moreover, 6 million workers couldn't, or didn't, go to work: "You don't need to be a brilliant mathematician to work out the total cost of the two days of action. I conservatively estimate it at £2 billion.' There are now major coal import terminals in Britain for the first time ever. The mining unsons alone can no longer stop supply. Yet Scargill argues that the workforce's hold on the industry is essentially undiminished: 'If you've got an industry where you've got massive investment, it doesn't matter whether you bring in alternative supplies. You still lose the money on that industry.' Can anything be done to stop privatisation? "Take industrial action! If anybody can give me a better way to do things I'm prepared to listen... If the Trade Inion Congress doesn't, sooner rather than later, give a positive lead and call upon its affiliates to support workers on strike, whether they be at Timex, Burnsall or the NUM, then it will become increasingly irrelevant Conversation switches to the Labour Party. Scargill argues that it should build its strategy on delivering the goods to the 'If the leadership of the Labour party, and the Clinton clones - Mr Brown and Mr Blair - get their way, it could be the first step on the road to disintegration of the Labour Party...' working class, in terms of maintenance of the NHS, education system, and social services. If that means jacking up income tax, so be it: "I would replace the whole of VAT with income tax. I would have no compunction at all about doing that. It's comWhen were you last at Walworth Road? I've never been, I'm pleased to say.' A Mike Yarwood-style send up of well-known telly documentary star Neil Kinnock follows, complete with cod Welsh accent.
"Relations between the NUM and the Labour Party haven't been a problem. Relations between the NUM leadership and the Labour Party leadership certainly were at a low level, and that was cleariy because of the Labour Party leadership's attiScargill expresses "disgust' with four Labour MPs who signed the Department of Trade and Industry select committee report on the coal industry last March:
Shame "They ought to hang their heads in shame for what they did. They voted for a report which had a Tory majority, and which proposed an increase in nuclear power. They supported no action to stop the dash for gas, and they refused to call for a stop to coal imports. Finally. they adopted a measure calling for a change in working prac or 12 hour shift and a six or seven day week.' All told, it was simply a green light to HeseltInc.
Scargill is generally satisfied with the NUM group of Labour MPs, which he says has consistently supported the union's line Yet one of its members was on "If people are saying I don't have a right to my views in the Labour Party as a Marxist, I'd like someone to point to the constitution and explain to me where that is.' the DTI select committee: Mick Clapham has not broken any rules; he's committed an er. ror of judgement, but that's different.* 'If the leadership of the Labour Party and the Clinton clones, Mr Brown and Mr Blair, get their way, it could be the first step towards the complete disintegration of the Labour Party as we know it. You may see the emergence of a new political party from the body of the trade union movement which represents a very clear-cut socialist alternative policy and which gives expression to the views of the trade union movement in parliament.' Great, when can I join? 'It's not as ridiculous as some people would have you believe,' Scargill insists. The leadership of the Miners* Federation of Great Britain was allied to the Liberal Party, even after the foundation of the Labour Party. Historical developments bought a change of attitude.
Could a new party be both trade union-based and explicitly socialist? If one political proposition unites VI. Lenin and Ernest Bevin, it is the recognition that the one certainly need not be the other: 'Yes, it could be wasn't both it wouldn't be the kind of party that would have the support of the trade unions or be capeble of winning mass support."
Union revolt
*I hope that the Labour Party will not pursue its current policy of one member, one vote to a poston wacre we cier begin to contemplate this. All I'm saying is that if it did, it may result in certain trade unions deciding that something's got to be What would stop it being the political expression of the trade Scargill revises his contention that the NUM line was completely perfect union right? 'Nothing at all. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, we want a political party that springs from the womb of the trade union move ment and then seck to condition the trade union movement to fit in with hardline socialist ideological views. You have to accept that there will be occasions when it does not necessarily give expression to views that are in line with yours!
But if you elect trade union leaderships which give the sort of expression they should be giving and which we saw in the 1970's, there is no reason on earth why they can't have the decisive influence on the political party.' So it would be a trade union party where socialists fight their comer, then? 'I don't see why you keep soardang socialists in the Labour Party from trade unThat's a fundamental mistake. It's just as bad as separating right-wing Labour Party Icaders that we've now got from trade unionists.' US Democrats "What I don't want to see is a middle-class party emerging with ultra social-democratic concois, occause it will become indistinguishable from the Democratic Party in the United States. God forbid... I want to see a socialist party with trade union support. Don't forget, the Labour Party has got a clause called clause four.' Big deal. It's still in the constitution, maybe, but the Clinton clones don't give a toss. Scargill replies: 'They don't give a toss because people in the trade un. ion movement have allowed wem nos to give a toss. But we've got a chance to stop that... If the Labour Party were to ap ply the same rigid rules that they apply to the Militant Tendency, SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No. 49. 18 September 1993, Page 9 there's a lot of people who are currently calling for an abandonment of clause four who quite honestly would be better off with the Liberal Democrats Hence a lot of New Statesman and Society editorials: I certainly wouln't have any pacts with the Liberals, I wouldn't have any realignment of policy that put us on a par with the Laberals, even thoush we're to the right of them at the mo'I certainly am a passionate, passionate advocate of proportional representation, because it's a socialist policy. Had we had 88U80ronal representation, you wouldn't have had Thatcher, you wouldn't have had the abolition of the GLC, you wouldn't have had the miners' strike, you wouldn't have had the setbacks we've seen in British industry and you wouldn't have had four and a half million unemployed.' Codswallop Scargill dismisses the argument that PR means coalitions: "Load of codswallop. Even if you get elected with 40 per cent of the vote, if you then put your policies to parliament and say. you either back us or you don't, and if you don't we call a general clection.' Some socialists support PR because they see the opportunity to create an electorally viable hard Left, even Marxist, party. Scargill is dismissive:
'I don't see any reason why the Labour Party, under a proportional representation system, Can t win a majonty of votes in COMMENT a general clection... I'm not in favour of different political par ties being created just for the hell of it.' Tm a Marxist, and I'm a member of the Labour Party and have been for 30 years. If people are saying I don't have the right bour Party as a Marxist, I'd like somcone to point to the constitution and explain me where Britain's most militant trade union leader picked up the tab for the cappuccinos.
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK No. 49. 18 September 1993, Page 10