challenge Kinnock! By PETE FIRM A NY 8Е
Labour's right wing greets new champion KINNOCK has made it clear where he intends taking the Labour Party in the period up to the General Election and beyond. His project is a Labour Government which is a re-run of the Wilson and Callaghan governments of the '60s and "70s or. despite his vocal denials. of the Lib-Lab pact if there is a hung parliament.
These governments were mildly reformist ones committed to no basic changes in capitalism. In fact they brought in wage controls, "workers' participation" designed to suck shop stewards into selling rationalisation plans to the workforce on behalf of management, reduced local government expenditure and began cuts in the public sector. In short the attemp ted by "consent" what Thatcher is doing by confrontation.
The basic elements of such a programme were contained in the "New Partnership" economic document of the TUC/Labour Party. The difference now is that after 6 years of Thatcher the situation facing a new Labour government would be not only many times worse, but a society restructured in favour of the ruling class. It would require drastic socialist measures to even begin to reverse unemployment, the decline in health and social services and any fundamental shift in the distribution of wealth.
Major inroads would need to be made into the economic power of the bosses with a labour movement prepared to resist all attempts at op position to this by the capitalists and their state machine. Kinnock's refusal to support those involved in class struggle shows he has no desire to
carry out such a programme.
Yet each time a Labour government fails to resolve this either in the direction of socialism or the bosses'
profitability it opens the door to a
more right wing Tory government
committed to attacking the organised
MLABOUR..BOURNEMOUTH...
LABOUR 85 working class and increasing repression.
It is clear that the Left has a duty to start organising now to win support for policies adequate to the situation and get them adopted as Party policy as well as defendng the best aspects of present policy against dilution. Such an organised opposition will be doubly important if Labour takes government and introduces austerity plans — as in France - but we cannot wait until then for such an opposition to be formed.
In addition to the urgency for those opposing the direction in which Kinnock is faking the Labour Party the question is also raised of whether to stand candidates against Kinnock would lead the same way. Socialist Viewpoint, No 8, November 1986. Page 6
and Hattersley for Leader and Deputy Leader. Such a challenge, although unlikely to win, would be central to taking the issues to the labour movement as a whole and solidifying the opposition.
Although annual contested elections for Leader and Deputy Leader are written into the constitution (except when in government) as part of the recent democratic gains, they have fallen into disuse in the last 2 years due to illusions in Kinnock and an unwillingness to provide the media with material for sensationalising "Party divisions" (as if Kinnock hadn't provided enough material, or as if they needed concrete evidence anyway). However, there can no longer be any confusion about the road Kinnock has chosen and now is the time to decide whether to mount a challenge at 1986 Conference. Party Conference 1987 will be too late: as the last Conference before the General election it will most likely be a jamboree for the benefit of the media.
Kinnock himelf said on the issue of implementing Conference decisions: "I don't propose to make resignation threats and all the rest of it. The big advantage of having an annual procedure for nominating the leader is Wilson and Callaghan led attacks on wages and unions while in office. Kinnock's policies
HOUR PATi that if anybody thinks they can do a better job they can get on with it."
Not standing candidates in 1986 will be represented as a refusal by the left to take up the challenge made by Kinnock and as not a serious opposition.
if the right to annual elections had been used in the last 2 years, the "media would not be able to exploit a challenge to the extent it could in 1986. However, we cannot allow the bosses' propaganda machine decide our tactics: democracy and the political importance of the situation must be the crucial factors.
There will be those on the left who feel such a challenge would be tac. ically unwise because if it was lost by an overwhelming margin we would be weaker than if it had not been carried out. This is little better than taking the soft left argument we'll lose, so we won't fight"; and "hard left" gloss on it: "if we lose, the left will be weaker, so we won't fight"
Weighed against losing an election must be the opportunity such a campaign would give to
eft. It would be impossible to assess
in advance the level of support since
his would largely depend ficacy of the campaign itself. campaign would need to be at least as
good as that of Benn
Leader in 1981, reaching
CLPs, Union branches,
Section, etc., but more importantly.
it would need to remain organised
after the campaign.
Others will say that the issue is
"policies, not personalities", or that a
challenge would deflect trom the
policy issues. But one without the
other is pretty meaningless. There's a
strong battle on policies to be had; #
we're strong enough to fight it, we're
strong enough to challenge
leadership too. Fighting for policies
alone isn't a soft option. And
better way to fight for policies than
repesenting them to the movement
through leadership candidates who
support them?
And Kinnock himself has made the
two inseparable. He has made it clear
that he will only implement those
policies with which
leadership which does not argue con-
vincingly for a set of policies is
neither going to win popular support
for them not carry them out. Equally
those who say organising the Lett
would put pressure on Kinnock to
carry out policies underestimate his
commitment to ignoring the decision-
making process of the Party. At the
end of the day accountability means
standing an alternative candidate.
The Left must begin immediately to
discuss both the policies
should be lought for and whether to
challenge Kinnock and Hattersley
next year. An urgent part of that
discussion would be how to ensure
that a candidate
unlike the last 2 years.
THOUGH the two composite resolutions on Ireland again heavily defeated at this rear's Labour Conference, there nas been some erosion of the position of "unity by consent". that to call for a United Ireland and oppose partition is Incompatible with the Unionist putting a veto. ample of the right wing stitch up. The only speakers called from Ireland: this after the usual vicious pro- organise the Imperialist rhetoric from Alex Kitson. The withdrawal: on the ef- The to oblivion. for Deputy doubt the all into Women's motion, though some abstained trade unionist united Ireland delegations, union much too late to swing key votes. LCI trade union year period of LCI work in the CLPs. the been going on for 16 years. what the distance of the venue from A he agrees. which is forthcoming,
Organising for