In late 1983, it became obvious that the soft-left in Burslem Central, having been embarrassed by the fact that their strategy had failed, and their matriarch, instead, had been the one who had breached Branch policy, were going to deselect me; my hands were, in many ways untied. After Jason and myself had broken Labour Group discipline, in opposing the rent rise, we had the whip withdrawn. Several weeks went by in which they tried to have us recant, but we refused. Eventually, a form of words was drawn up, which we agreed to. It basically asked us not to be naughty boys, and to agree to say we wouldn't do it again. "I'm prepared to say I won't do it again", I made clear, just as I had previously said before being elected that I would abide by Labour Group discipline. Whether I would or not was a different matter.
I knew that the soft left would deselect me, as they had planned all along. I knew who would be selected. Norman Rides, who was their choice, came to me before the meeting and even said that, if I asked him, he would not stand against me. I told him he should stand, and I had no hard feelings. I knew in my address to the selection meeting, I need not hold back. Here is the content of my speech, delivered on 22nd. February 1984.
A Difficult Situation
Comrades, we are in a very difficult situation. World capitalism is in massive crisis; unemployment is over 4 million, and likely to rise further; the bosses are intent on solving their crisis at our expense, by smashing the trades unions, and dismantling the already inadequate provisions of the welfare state. The Labour Party's reformist politics have always been inadequate to offer an alternative for the working-class. In the current situation, they are even more inadequate, if not useless. Worse still, since the election defeat, last year, and the election of Kinnock, the dominant trend in the Labour Party has been steadily rightwards.
Kinnock
In the face of the bosses onslaught what has been Kinnock's response? Firstly, he attempted to water down the party's unilateralist policies at conference, then we saw him continue his support for the witch-hunt against the Left, with the expulsion of the Militant Editorial Board, and his direct intervention to get Tariq Ali expelled. Since conference, we have seen the Kinnockite NEC stitch up Wythenshawe CLP, and the witch-hunt stepped up with the expulsion of 8 Militant supporters in Blackburn, another in Gillingham, comrades being prevented from taking up or transferring membership in Birmingham Yardley, an attempt to prevent Charlie Hughes in Stoke South from renewing his membership, and a call in the same constituency for an investigation into Socialist Organiser.
But, Kinnock has not just confined himself to attacking the Left in the party. During the NGA dispute, instead of organising support on the picket lines, as the Campaign Group of MP's did, Kinnock actually attacked the mass pickets for their violence. In the meantime, the soft left in the party try to ignore all this, in order to cling to their illusion about Kinnock being left-wing. All discussion in the party is closed down. We saw in Stoke the way in which the rally for Kinnock was organised along American Presidential lines, with no attempt to invite the other contenders, and no provision to question. We saw, in Burslem Central, how, when Jason wanted to present information detrimental to Kinnock, circulation of the material was bureaucratically stifled.
Nor is it just Kinnock who has been shown to be politically bankrupt. The local government and soft left have demonstrated the same failings.
The Local Government/Soft Left
Yes, Livingstone and Blunkett demonstrated Kinnock's right-wing politics at the Local Government conference, when they fell out with him by calling for Local Authorities to break the law, but they, themselves, over the last five years have failed to confront the Tories. They have instead carried out the Tories' cuts, and prefer Popular Fronts with the SDP and Tories rather than mobilising the working-class. When they have the opportunity, here and now, to put their words into action, by mobilising support for Liverpool, they back down, and have even attempted to put pressure on Liverpool not to confront the Tories. Again, that trend has been reflected, here in Stoke, where, over the question of the rent increase, the soft left, both inside and outside the Labour Group failed to support the stand taken by Jason, myself, and the majority of Burslem Central, and eventually, having refused to take on the right-wing over the political issue, the same soft left sold us out when we were disciplined. That time, people hid behind the need for abiding by Group decisions, but no such excuse existed for the capitulation of the soft left at last week's Labour group meeting over the cuts in the budget. The so called left representatives of the City Party sat silent while the right-wing pushed through yet another round of attacks on the working-class.
Revolutionaries v Soft Left
Through all this, the only people who have defended socialist principles has been the revolutionaries; the comrades from Militant running Liverpool, and comrades, around the country, like myself, who are supporters of Socialist Organiser. As a result of sticking to our guns, whilst the soft left capitulates, we are facing de-selection. But the political lines are becoming clearer. As the soft left becomes gradually more right-wing and bureaucratic, so the revolutionary left has begun to unite through the establishment of the National Labour Briefing Network, and its links with the Campaign Group, and the Broad Lefts Organising Committee in the trades unions.
The result is that increasingly the political division in the Party will be between the soft left and the comrades of Labour Briefing, because, at the end of the day, there is no real difference between the Tories and those in the Labour Party who are prepared to carry out their policies without a fight.
Burslem Central has to decide which way it wants to go – either to line up with the rightward moving elements of the Party, or to stand on socialist principles for a fight to defend the working-class, here, and now, whether such a fight has the support of the Labour Group or not. It is by that standard that the politics of Burslem Central in its decision tonight will be judged.
*****
As mentioned in the speech, early in 1984, discussion on the next year's budget took place. It included a series of cuts in proposed spending. I obviously put forward a motion to the Branch that we should oppose these cuts. This time, the soft left had a majority to oppose the motion. At the time, the Council was also in a dispute with the unions in the City Works Department. Having failed to get support from the Branch in opposing the budget cuts, it was obvious that, this time, there was no basis for any kind of principled opposition from within the Council Chamber, and the wider Left was showing no intention of fighting. With only a few weeks to go, before the elections, I decided that the principled position was to resign as a Councillor. In my letter of resignation, which the Town Clerk had to read out in front of Full Council, in all of his full regalia and wig, I set out a series of charges against the anti-working class stance of the Labour Group, apparently accompanied with cries of “shame” from the Labour Right, as well as setting out, as an example, the Council's attacks on its own workforce, whilst declaring my complete solidarity with the City Works unions.
No comments:
Post a Comment