defend them, the weaknesses and contradictions were exposed in the tury of the election campaign.
There's no way we're going to see - a Labour government elected on this half-way programme, because aren't going to convince workers that it's going to work. They remember the record of two Labour governments in the last twenty years which promised maca we same lnng. 1ue, remember that we promised to deliver so much and yet we failed to deliver on anything other than an increase in public spending, financed out of taxation out of workers' pockets.
And they know that until we're prepared to tackle the wealth already existing in society, a Labour Party that dodges that issue is going to fall back cuts in public spending, higher taxes and an incomes because there is no other way of doing the things the Labour Party wishes to ao In office if it isn't prepared to tackle the question of the control of capital.
I'm one of those who declined to sign the statements that were drifting around before the election saying sign here to defend the existing policies, the existing leadership, the membership. While I was quite happy to defend the existing membership, I wasn't too happy to defend the other two categories.
I believe that we aren't going to be in a position to win at an election until saying quite coherently, terms that workers can understand. that Labour will fund its programme out of the existing wealth, the control of capital.
In no other western industrialised nation does the financial sector have such a dominant influence as it has in country. There's no radical socialist government what it wants without tackling the question of the City of London.
We have lost that debate at con ference. We haven't persuaded the conference to go for nationalisation of the banks, we didn't persuade the bank workers union that they'd actually be better off under a nationalisprivate employers. reopen make it a coherent one which we can win the support before we have any chance of winning some detensive position of saving 'de fend the existing policies', because I think they've been exposed as being totally unworkable.
that we've got that ducking of the issue. without also talking aso estension of public ownership. policy, that. The reason Thatcher is going to try and destroy British Telecoms is it's you privatise it you're actually not in favour of capital that wants. existing we're prepared to take into ownership the productive sectors of the economy, we are going to con. tinue to fall back on the issue of pay. ing for services of the weltare state out of higher taxes.
in along just defending our policies, we Lave argue : tor capital, we have to argue for the tension of public ownership. In doing that we've got some 30 years of damaging propaganda. abour woat pubac corporalione when tionalisation. We have got to raise the way any issue of the workforce having control can do of that it we're to have any succes.
whatsoever.
Unti polices straight, no new combination policic ed industry than under their present so we nave to Labour's programme, where he workers for, We don't want to slip down into It's not only on economic policy Because there's no way we can programme Thatcher realises the converse of meetings, role at the core of the British economy making the shift in power and wealth Thatcher We have to win the reverse. Until Danel t isn't a question now of coing want. the control of : ex- every counter-balance they're under naover economic For deputy CLPs. his whi denied the NEC recommendation conference that the NEC should co trol the manifesto. We are still awa implications of l failure to vote for Benn. We're awa of his vote on Tatchell, his vote f every expulsion. And it's quite cle the campaign he's going to run fro his statement in the Sunday Time said that the question Militant has to speedily and firm deal with, and that we have to revi our policy on the Common Marke!
Part of our failure is how we' organised for so long. Our strug has far too often been confined to t Labour Party, and that complai you hear from some organisations the left that the Labour Party resolution machine can come dama ingly close to the truth.
I believe that our weakness » shown in the basic block of votes th we lost — skilled working class vot It is these workers that we have target. We won't get them to wa we've got to start to bu workplace. The Party constitut workplace. The constituti for braici Unless we get into the workplace & there. political debate there and argume we are not going to recapture that si tion of the vote It may be that we can mobilise win socialist policies and a left wi NEC, but that's not enough. We h to turn outwards and start to build t the that is t prerequisite for the of Labour government of the sort Unless we turn out in support grouo or workers In surug every group in the community tha going to be fighting the cuts, we are going to be able to see these peo then turn around and vote for us a future general election (This is an edited version of Ken L ingstone's speech which was heard 350 people at a meeting Monday in London called to discr the next steps for the left after i The meeting was organis by Socialist Action)
Tay is the one on the leash LABOUR's election humilaThis made sense to many voters ON THE first Wednesday of the election campaign, after Healey had torpedoed Labour's unilateralist policies, Tony Benn was speaking to a Labour Party CND rally in Bristol.
The speech he could have made but didn't - came from Helen John. Denis Healey, she said, does not represent the Party's policies but we do. And, we can make sure a future Labour government carries out its promises because women, if they organise like the Greenham Common campers, will stop Denis Healey from sabotaging unilateralism.
If Tony Benn had made that speech it might not have won the damage had already been done. Nor would it have united the leadership. They were then irrevocably split. However it would have been a counterblast to Callaghan's speech the same night, which put the final nail in Labour's coffin.
It would have also rallied the ranks of the great majority of Labour supporters who do support unilateralism to give them the confidence to try and win over the Again it would have proved to millions in the peace movement who had not made up their mind for Labour that at least one section of Labour thought unilateralism was more important than Party infighting. would not be forced into similar economies by the mounting crisis, as it predecessors were?
policies on were based on Shore's 'emergency 12-month proTony Benn did not make that speech. That did not diminish anyone's respect for his integrity; but it did show the weakness the political line which he has followed since the Bishops Stortford meeting of party and union leaders after he lost the Deputy Leadership in as the case for them was never put. If the economy saw sabotage by default, defence saw direct scabbthe ing. Healey Peter deliberately put the Labour. Confusion on defence was HAS ANYBODY SEEN THE PARLIAMENTARY ROAD TO SOCIALISM?. 1981r of Callaghan knife into This line was endorsed by most of the parliamentary left right up to the With the good nel MPs such as Reg Race and Roberts who backed Socialists for a • It was fought for b the Campaign for Labour Part: