IT IS A LAW of politics that it is impossible to stay in the same place. If you do not go forward, you must go backwards. That truth is dramatically confirmed by the response of the soft left to Labour's defence campaign. Launched amid a razzmatazz of nationalism and militarism rarely used so openly by the party, the Modern Britain campaign emphasises Labour's commitment to NATO and pledges that every penny now spent on nuclear weapons will be reallocated to increasing conventional LCC-sponsored Chartist magazine, 'we will have to bite our tongues' and support the campaign. Tribune was positively enthusiastic: It does not compromise Labour's non-nuclear defence policy in any way whatsoever,' said editor Nigel Williamson, and attacked the campaign's critics in the party. CAROL TURNER examines why the soft left, which was campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament and a reduction in arms spending in 1979-83, is now prepared to support waving the union jack and clamouring for more tanks. THE formula the soft left is busy providing to justify support defence campaign is the time-honoured argument that the party cannot win PRaHOn on thiblooded programme. Both Nigel Williamson's article in the New Year issue of Tribune ('Anther left myth bites the dust') anel the editorial of the January-February edition of Chartist ('Defence and nukes: winning heerts as wel as minds) are categorical in that have to start from where ocopic arc al, tut wiicle wo might like them to be.
The ICaDULL the electorate will not accept unilateral nuclear disarmament, the soft lett claim, is because that would 'leave words of the Chartist, callllarkll 'must be confident, outspoken and combative in reassuring people that a non-nuclear defence policy stands for a stronger and more effective defence'.
The conclusion drawn, therefore, that HSL Subot a CUnventional weapons build-up.
But according to the The question of whether or not that is objectively desirable, Whether it cor responds to the interests of anole considered.
The idea that Labour cannot advocate particular policies because the electorate is not 'socialist' is an old argument of the right wing. "this time round it is that Labour Party leadership is attemoumg to tit suDDort for unilateral nuclear disarHalcut into framework that is wrong and makes it impossible to present that policy credibly.
What is happening is that Labour is slipping into a more and more openly DIO-NAIV pro-militar spending role. This is not oniy wrong in liselt oul ll will ultimately undermine TIne party's unilatera ist position lucical weapons as well.
The Modern campaign is just the latest in a whole series of retreats which started immediately after a two-thirds majority was won at the 1983 party conference, ensuring unilateralism's place HaNlfesto. The first step backwards was contained in the Defence and Security for Britain document published Nauenerl pointed that savings trom cancelling Irident and decommissioning Polaris 'will assist the aim of the Labour Party, over time, of bringing Britain's defence spending towards average of our major European allies as a proportion national income. This could not be achieved in the lifetime of a single parliameul wildout Narol culs u our conventional forces which we ao not recommend.' This commitment ConventoN began the erosion of conterence policy. Inanks to a deliberately ambiguous NEC statement to the 1986 Defence and Conversion Costs, this has now transmogrified into defence campaign which pledges proudly that penny saved on evely nuclear weapons wik be ploughed into conventional arms. Ihe Modern Britaln campaign even now commits a Labour government maintaining conventional weapons spending, in rente ms aume ceon 20 per cent increase it has renonce oasis' seven years of the Thatcher Bovenmenl.
Other aspects of unilateralism, and opposition to conventional spending, have equally sulfered. Among the first to welcome Defence Security for Britan was none other Denis Healey, who pointea out 'define more precisely' what a nuclear base was.
This has been done by the present defence campaign: 'nuclear bases' are now defined as the few that actually hold nuclear warheads, and action on those will only HAKCI after 'discussion with the NATO's nuclear staging capacity and its ability to fight a nuclear war from British soil, will be left Mounting defence ampagu vascu vn suppor or NATO and a build-u] of conventional arms has nothing to do with detending nuclear disarmament, despite all the protestations to the contrary by the sof militarism and une emphasis 'defence on is nelp mirake Labour's policy more credi- quite the reverse. Nor is it going to be an effective means 0. w slatill an election - if militarism is the card to play, Thatcher is going to win hands down.
But this is exactly the road that Tribune, the LCC and the rest of the soft left are now travelling down. They are doing so because they pose the issue in a way that is hopeless.
Nigel Williamson claims: "The simple truth is that Labour cannot be an electoral party and a party of pure undiluted socialism al oe die tic nie bgc because the electorate itself is not yet socialist' which leaves aside the small ques. tion of whether have to be a socialist ro op realls pose chauvinist hysteria and building tanks. The Char tist's conclusion that the left must "OILe amounts to the same thing In fact the Chartist editorial doggedly contrives to ignore its own advice thai Labour must appeal to the electorate's 'self -interest'. in order to arrive at exactly the same conclusion as Nigel Williamson's quote above But this argument is Wrong aL Cry SiCu First and least importantly, far from nuclear disarmament being unpopular and the vote loser that the Labour leadership and the soft left believe it to be, the strength of feeling against nuclear weapons huge demonstrated time again on the streets of Britain and across West Europe. That is precisely because maintaining ance t ansens s rorater in the self-interést of the maioritv ot people in this country or for that matter, across the globe.
The great majority of the population of this country have no objective interest whatsoever in maintaining military arsenals of any kind. The military machine does not exist to 'defend Britain' but for quite othel purposes including a present for LOSC ion hin third worid liberation in Coulte for Dal ticipating in a completely reactionary cold war arms bulld-up against the USSR What a state the soft left has been reduced to when 1l considers that it has to sup. port prolects such as reinforcing the British army on the Rhine For years the ideology of the cold war has been the main way of securing popular support for military spending. Fighting that cold war ideology is the masoc c.n . a fight against militarism The rise of the movement against nuclear weapons is precisely part of breaking down that framework.
Labour's Modern Bri tain campaign is incoherent because it simultaneously proposes nuclear disarmament and goes along with that cold war retoric. Kinnock's emphasis on NATO trips to see the Berlin Wall and similar episodes, actually reinforce that cold war framework.
That is exactly what removes any coherenci from the policy at all - and opens it up to easy attack. If we are really threatened by the 'Soviet menace then it is necessary to have nuclear wcabuls - that is the conclusion the electorate will draw. By adopting a cold war political framework the Labour leadership makes it impossible to mobilise support in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament. And an incoherent policy undoubtedly policy.
There is of course a way to appeal to precisely the 'self-interest' which in their other writings the LCC and Tribune stress. Socialism, of course, is not something op posed to the self interest of the majority, but is the self interest of the majority. The threat of nuclear annihilation is something very close indeed to people's 'selfinterest' - and that is why the movement against nuclear weapons has played such a massive and progressive role.
What 1s needed LU UC• fend unilateralism, however, is to make the rest of Labour's policy consistent with it, for Labour to break out of the entire cold war maanewon Ernest Bevin played dominated the y since La key role in setting up NATO That Is what the movement for unilateralim began to achieve in the early 1980s and it is exactly what Kinnock 1s now trying to over turn. If he succeeds in that, if cold war nationalism and militarism becomes the rhetoric of the Labour ParMonday.
as the two women's and one socialist society slot.
The Campaign GroupLLL slate Mandy Moore of the Women's Action Committee, Ken Slater of CLPD, Johnny Burrows of Chesterfield treasurer of North Der byshire NUM won in the constituencies With 101,000 John Burrows got well over twice the votes of his nearest rival, a right winger Bailey, on the Forward Labour slate.
constituencies casc. the right wing swept home sections where the trade union block vote dominates the result.
Owen Briscoe, the NUM's candidate in the trade union section, was • runner up. He lost David Brookman of the Iron Steel I rade. Confederation only votes The only left candidate to be elected to the trade union section Was TGWU Alan Quinn of the Rose Degiorgio of APEX and Dianne Hayter of the Society of Labou Lawyers, right wingers, , swept Lue bodie the women's section NCC election:
CLP Section:
Mandy Moore Ken Sater...
Johnny Burrows Trade Union Section: Fred Binks (UCW)
Alan Hadden (GMBATU) Alan Quinn (TGWU) John Weakley (AEU) David Brookman (ISTC)
Women's Section:
Rose Degiorgio..
Dianne Hayter .
Socialist Society Section wiDoolev...
ty, then unilateralism will eventually be abandoned as surely as night follows day. 'The role the sott lett ha played in every field is to first accept the framework of the other side and then finally surrender the terrain altogether. This is exactly wnat is being done with unilateralism. By accepting the framework Kinnock's defence campaign, policies are being supported today which are reactionar the way being D cDalcu tor abandoning unilateralism tomorrow.
THE RESULTS of the election to the National Constitutional Committee, the body established by the NEC to sanitise expulsions, were announced last The three candidates supported by the Campaign Group and Labour Left Liaison swept the board in the constituency section. But the right won four out of the five trade union places, as well Among the wing standing, Vera Wolle Derer of CLPD polled 674,000 votes Margaret Vallins Chesterfield CLP polled 330,000.
The vote of the Labour clubs ensured that another right winger, Dooley, won the socialist society section Scal WiLil comfortable 27,000 votes.
The constituency section vote is a good result for Labour's left wing - a clear indication that the constituency parties unwilling to see further witch and of the dominance of the Campaigr Group-LLL left But, while the CLPs result is a good one the overall outcome shows the continuing swing to the right in The overall balance of te Nue Is predominalli) favour of conținued witch hunts - despite the moral victory won in the CLP section. As the Guar. dian of Tuesday 6 January put it: 'Kinnock gets his purging group'. Successful candidates in . 135,000 108,000 • . 101, w 5,045,000 5,005,000 3,376,000 3,076,000 2,962,000 :. 27,000
Socialist Action 9 Jan 1987