is to stand a chance of winning the next general election it is precisely by sticking to the sort of policies upheld on local government and the miners.
It is precisely by showing that a Labour government is prepared to defence is it to interests logoing defence of the interests working class and the oppressed of this society. That is why, after the 1985 annual conference, the fight is still on to commit the party to defending all those in against the Tories.
That fight starts with the defence of the mineworkers union and all miners victimised as a result of their strike, and with the defence of the Liverpool council's attempt to protect the jobs and services of the city's people. CAROL TURNER reports Bournemouth. • See page 4 for a report of that speech. aks In my constituency we have 50, 60 percent unemployment. have areas, streets, where there workers who for the last five or aix years hav working, never had a job.
I want to make it quite clear that walking off the platform was a spontaneous action on my part And I want to make It clear that I do apologise for what I did — I would do it again, I have a right to do it. We have got to tell the leader of this party that he can't treat his own supporters and his own people like that.
This is a Labour CND meeting -and this comes to the whole question of NATO and nuclear weapons and I will recall to you what happened many years ago al we scarborougl conference. I was there when the then party leader opposed the decisions of the party and said he would fight, fight, fight again. He split the party from top to bottom, when we were all trying desperately to show a united fight. Today, years afterwards, the policy that Gaitskell said he would fight, fight, fight again is actually the policy of the party, and it's accepted as the policy of the party.
The councillors in Liverpool - in taking the stand they are taking — are raising in their own way the whole question of the defence budget. The money that has been spent for defence cannot be spent on the houses and the services for the people of Liverpool and elsewhere. AFTER ARTHUR Scargill moved the miners resolution, conference heard Eric Hammond of the electricians, Gavin Laird engineers, and others come to the struggle rostrum to denounce mineworkers union for attempting to wreck the chances of electing a Labour government. While the big trade union guns were wheeled out to oppose the resolution, only constituency delegates were called to support it.
When the chair announced the close of the debate, he was drowned out by a relentless slow handWe not ARTHUR Scargill, National Union Mineworkers, moving composite motion 69 - moving the motion against a background malicious whipped up by Fleet Street and, sadly, aided and abetted by sections even within our party.
In 1985 we find ourselves embroiled in a major debate on the already won the support of this party on a previous occasion. I want to warn this conference that if in today's debate it fails to support this particular motion it will make an absolute mockery of last year's standing ovations in support of miners, the women's support groups, and the struggles of miners and their families.
The national executive committee accept the first two parts of our resolution. They can see that there is an overwhelming case for review of all those cases of miners jailed as a result of acVines during the secondly can see that there is an overwhelming case, supported by the select committee in the House of Commons, for reinstatement of miners sacked by a vindictive National Coal Board supported by Thatcher determined to destroy the British coal When we met the party leadership, we were told that the real issue, indeed the only issue, retrospective legislation and the reimbursement of the funds confiscated by fines, sequestration and receivership. 1 reason than in 1982 this party conference by a majority of over 6,000,000 to 66,000 passed a resolution accepting the principle c tion to reimburse trade unionists who were fined in this particular way. Sureclap.
the TUSErUH. the the deafening. in the debate today, but ... the said.
ship. carried by 2,912,000 mination that still existst within the party to trenchantly defend those in struggle against the vicious Tory government. shackled by a Tory government. hysteria Issue of which has junction was granted.
for having the audacity, sequestration. -Ene dispute. They plaintiffs and the defendents, government you, but I will, carry on' — appointed a was the question of our union.
Actions
if for no other of retrospective legislaDelegates demanded Ron Todd speak. When Todd came to applause was *I didn't intend to join he Despite Neil Kinnock's speech of the precious day, the miners debate saw conference slip from the political control of the leaderThe miners resolution was 3,542,000 votes to - confirming the deterly if it was right in 1982 it's more than right in 1985 after the miners have been We were fined 2200,000 without even having the opportunity to put our case in the Hight Court. We were fined £200,000 on the basis of an action which had to come before the courts for a full hearing. An interlocutory inThat case has now been abandoned ard yet our union question?
according to Strength the media and the Tory Party, of standing by the rules and constitution of our own union found itself in contempt of court, was placed under an order of But more sinister for the whole movement and certainly for every trade union was an application in November 1984. Fourteen miners took the union to court and argued that there should be an appointment of a receiver and Iree trustees democratically elected by the union. We reached an agreement between the WCHIL back into court with that agreement between the two sides, when suddenly at the back of the court a barrister stood on his feet and said: I've no right to be here, can I have an audience?' tom of my heart. The judge said I've no right to hear - and at the end of a two-hour submission removed three elected trustees of the NUM and receiver that has resulted in costs of over £l million to Surely there is a class issue at stake here. Our union has been hijacked — 11,000 miners and this movement ignores that fact at its peril. There's nothing peculiar or strange about introducing retrospective legislation. There's nothing peculiar or strange about giving a commitment to the trade union movement who find they themselves at the wrong end of Tory legislation, or at the wrong end of laws that are designed clearly to attack the basic democracy of unions.
Why is it that in 1985 there is even a debate about this issue? We determined the principle in 1982. Why then in 1985 can't we reaffirm that position without In a speech yesterday it was said that principle without power is sterile Comrades, as a socialist all my life, I also urge that power without principle for a socialist is unthinkable. If the government call introduce retrospective legislation under the 1982 Employment Act to give compensation to workers who refuse to join a union under a closed shop agreement, our union movement and our party also give the same commitment to TUC policy and say with one loud voice that our movement is not going to stand idly by in the face of more and more attacks upon our civil rights and upon our trade union movement in this country I have to ask conference from the botboat There are many reasons I can put forward in support of this resolution. I believe the fact that it is existing party policy and that this sympathy finds the issue at stake for the NUM and other unions who've been thwarted with this type of legislation should be enough.
But if you need any more convincing, I'll give you a convincing case:
were arrested in our dispute, 7000 of our members were injured, 11 people who died, including 4 on picket lines as they struggled to save jobs and pits and communities. Those people suffered in that way not because were mindless militants but because they were carrying out the policy of the TUC, carrying out the policy of the Labour Party.
I ask this party to give its commitbeen criticised because People tell me 'you can't rock the because voul destroy the future'. I do not believe it will impair the future of a Labour government.
I ask you, what will we do when they come and tell me they don't like my unions' policy on incomes? Will I change it? What will I do if they tell me they don't like unilateral nuclear disarmament? Will I change it? If we ao were trators take no joy in standing here and saying different to people on the platform. I want a Labour government. I want a socialist government. But I will not betray the National Union of Mineworkers.
Socialist Action 11 October 1985 solidarity Solidarity round the world BRITISH
----- pull-quotes -----
ment to them as they did to you. I Ron Todd: union put its vote (with the NUM).