Kinnock as Labour Party leader becomes more obvious. His hysterical attack on those MPs from the Campaign Group who caused the genteel men's club in Westminster to adjourn its sitting for all of 20 minutes is only the latest in an ever increasing list of events where the maintenance of the status quo is more important to him than directly challenging the Tories.
Many who voted for Kinnock as leader in '83 did so because they thought he would unite the Party around Conference
policy against the Tories. At the time we said they were wrong, that Kinnock was in fact out to undermine the gains of recent years, both in policy and democratic rights. We didn't foresee how quickly and blatantly he would move to prove us right.
In the space of 18 months he has atempted to degut party policy on disarmament; kept up the witch-hunt against the left (on a more subtle local basis without a national focus like the expulsion of the Militant editoria. board); refused to give any backing to Liverpool Council last year and the rate-capped authorities this year (preterrina to defend the "law of the land"') and at last year's Party Conference narrowly lost after throwing his weight behind the attempt to undermine reselection (the "Evans amendment").
But of course the outstanding issue of the last year has been the miners' strike. Despite conference policy giving full support to the miners and condemning police violence, Kinnock has gone out of his way to do the opposite. Calling for a ballot long after this was even a tactical issue (if it ever was); attacking the mass pickets for attempting to make the picket line effective; refusing to speak on the platform at the NUM rallies (he must have known the
Willis was goin to get in S.
Nales); even after the NUM delegate con ference belatedly called for supportive strike action he denounced the left MPs who took up this call; and now denounces them for even trying to get a parliamentary debate on the strike.
Of course it's not an issue of Kinnock's personality (Hattersley and many others have been just as bad), but of his politics - best summed up in one word "electoralism" He accuses the left of not wanting a Labour government returned at the next election. This is rubbish and always has been, but where we differ is in how we see that coming about and what we want such a Labour government to do. For Kin. nock the answer is easy - you make a lot
noise easy issues that will bolster specific policies, about some steer well chain the proversial die a nd your showing in the opinion
Tones (if necessary attacking those who take them up). In fact you end up, alongside the Tory Wets, simply arguing with Thatcher about what the level of state intervention into the economy should be, refusing to recognise that what the government is doing is fuńdamentally necessary if British capitalism is to become competitive again (which is why most elements of their strategy have been tried by previous Labour governments in one form or another). And there's no question that a Kinnock government would be very much a follow on from the Wilson and Callaghan ones
A Socialist leadership would not only be Socialist Viewpoint, No. 3, February 1985. Page 1
DEFEND LOCAL DEMOCRACY spreading the argument that what is needed is not tinkering around with various economic mechanisms but to take it out of the hands of the capitalists and place it under workers' control, but also throwing the whole weight of the Party behind those sections of the movement fighting now, whether it be over jobs, union rights, cuts, or all the other issues attecting us. And the argument that the "law of the land" is class law would be central to this.
In fact all the indications are that we are more likely to get a Labour government elected in this way than by Kinnock's softly sottly route. Just look at the response before the last election to Shore's declaration that the way out of Britain's economic problems was to borrow money from the banks Why vote Labour it their programme appears little ditterent from that of the Alliance who seem a lot surer of their ground? In fact, why vote for anyone but Thatcher, when the state of the economy is crying out for drastic measures and no one else seems to have any?
But the message of what's wrong with Kinnock's leadership still has to sink in amongst many on the "left". Tribune under its new editor Nigel Williamson has attacked Benn and the left on the same "electoral" grounds as Kinnock. Elements of the left on the NEC (reportedly Meacher and Tom Sawyer of NUPE) are said to want to align themselves with Kinnock "to diminish the influence of the right on him", even though all the evidence is that Kinnock gives a lead to the right rather than following it. This is the logic of seeing the aim of "unity" above all else. Unity is not an abstract ideal to be chased after at all costs, but something to be entered into with those willing to actually take up a fight against the Tories. Talk of perpetua uinity with the right only diarms the left against witch hunts and the erosioir of clear policy. And let no-one be fooled by Kinnock's visit to Nicaragua. The reason he gave for wanting the USA to stop supporting the contras was because it would
rive the government into the hands
astro and Russia, not because of any e plicit support for radical measures by that government.
The challenge to Kinnock has to b nounted at this year's Party Conference which makes it a matter of urgency to put pressure on the Campaign Group to pu forward a candidate, something they have so far denied a willingness to do A massive campaign must be mounted as soon as possible by all organisations on the lett ready to support an anti-Kinnock candidate to get the message over in every union and every CLP well in advance of Party Conterence in the autumn.