SocialistAction 1983–88

The paper of the Socialist League, formerly the International Marxist Group, 1983–88

Labour must support women's demands

· Socialist Action No. 115, 27 September 1985 · p. 9 of the scan · 885 words

The scan: 115-sep-27-1985-SA-UK.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 3-7 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 9 of the scan

THE FORTY FOUR Labour MPs who voted for Enoch Powell's so-called Unborn Child (Protection) private members bill, restricting research, are given a hard time in the six resolutions presented under the title 'reproductive rights' in the conference agenda. Each CLP is outraged at woman's right to choose.

Such strong stutt is to be welcomed. Labour must develop NOCK Harrow East CLP, angle and not from the traditional family structure. Labour must also repeal the Gillick ruling and ensure free contraceptive advice is available to the under-Jo's when it comes lo power arguei Taubton CLP.

Watford and Taunton CLP's along with others denounce the free vote - the central probiem that pro-choice campaigners in the Party have faced — urging Labour MP's to vote for a woman's right to choose 'and leave the matter of conscience to the individua woman concerned'.

Such sharp points are summed up nicely by Ruislip CLP's Instence should be formulated by Labour leaders in 'conorganisations within the Party'.

This highlights the argument that the women's organisation have the automatic right to present five resolutions to party conference. In return it would be an excellent gesture if members of WAC made a priority of helping pro-choice campaigners to get this debate onto the agenda of this year's bill agalist a wollan s Liese Issues members and women's Ly. THE DEMANDS of the Women's Action Committee, so controversial a few years back, are still on this year's conference agenda. They haven't gone away - and the main reason for that is that they simply haven't begun to be met. eclipsed though, in media terms, by the demands ot black people for self-organisation within the party.

WAC activists, explained to CAROL TURNER why Labour women are still fighting and why the issue of black sections is part of the same fight. WOMEN'S Action Committee supporters have put of OURING resolutions to this year's Labour Party conference We are making three basic demands: the right of the national 401ference to put forward five ference; the right of national women's conference to elect five women directthe national executive: and that at least one woman be on CyCl parliamentary shortlist.

The fundamental aim of WAC women in the Labour ParAlthough there is an Conterence Labour women, it has no doesn't even report to annual conference. We want women's conference a real At the moment women on the Labour national executive are elected by annual conference that means by the trade union bloc vote. Year after year wonder like Betty Boothroyd come tor the poll for women's NEC places but they simply don't have the support of women feminist, and they aren't accountable to women in the party. women were directly elected, wen tney fight for interests The same goes for women parliamentary candidates and MPs. In over 300 selections that nave already taken place, at one point there were only women selecica. tuency after constituency had all-male shortlists.

No one's saying local parties have to select women or demane least be on the SHOELISI is, in tact. modest. We're saying 'give women a chance' AL DIC sent it looks as if there aren't to be any more women in parliament after the next general election than there are in this.

These are the reasons why women's demands are a big issue al tis year .

Because it's VILY Ip-scl vice paid women's rights — and that includes all sections of the the left. the ront the centre. This most clearly shown in the They have been Westminster councillor and Williams to argue that women are somehow less reliable than men. Nobody brings up David Owen, o1 the multitude of other unrelable men.

endless list of white men who've sold out the Labour Party.

In one sense the fight the same as the fight ol black members. At the end pose de demands or JUDE the demands women are the same peo. ple who oppose the demand for black sections At the heart of it, they are about protecting their own individual power.

Bureaucracy There's no way that we can empower women and black people without takite more Capitalism and power Labou bureaucracy can always afford to have a few token •blacks or women. Look at America, there's been black congressmen since the '40s.

If it was just a question of individual: women wanting advancement we wouldn't need to raise autonomous organisation. None of the leading WAC supporters have been selected. Sharot myself hated by white men. There are easier ways of getting a career than upsetting the establishment.

I was already a councillor before I became involved in black sections. I black section to become a councilior, did bed use lies a political wanted Dase DaSe wasn't with being token, I wanted to involve black people in the political process.

Ît is these issues, for these reasons, that WAC will be organising again at this year's party organising just through resolutions but also with a fringe meeting on the Monday of conference, and our review on Thursday.

We want to draw more and more party women in o what we're doing an what we're fighting for Women at the 1980 party conference: little has changed

----- pull-quotes -----

Put abortion on the agenda

embryo this

'a positive policy based in the War- 'from a socialist

← A challenge to the leftLabour's NATO debate →

Something wrong on this page?