SocialistAction 1983–88

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

Single

Socialist Action No. 167, 5 June 1987 · pp. 2-3 of the scan · 874 words

The scan: 167-jun-05-1987-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); 6-6 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 2 of the scan

that would benefit women demand for a Ministry for Women is sunported bv 64 per cent of women. Yet the words "national minimum wage have scarcely been mentioned in the campaien launch campagn tor a winistry I01 Women but since then littk has OCCI little in fact that polls show that the majority of women thought that the proposal for such a ministry was a emphasising long before the election The single biggest crime of the Labour leadership in the last lour years was Ils lallure to support workers who wele engaged in with the Thatcher government Failure support the miners, rate-capped councils, back the NGA and SOGAT allowed Thatcher to the blows against the labour movement which allowed her to even have possibility of winning the What the campaign sho clear. First fight to set the agen respond to th ouiers deconomes * its campaign by supp every struggle whier place outside and bef Third it car today the expands its to 'traditional (male) wc class issues' abo deal These conclusior not "looney propaganda. They a the facts established th the election campaign

page 3 of the scan

put to the test AFTER A WEEK of unremitting pressure over the defence issue', Labour called its first London press conference of the election campaign on Thursday 28 May. Polaris would be scrapped within a fortnight of Labour taking office Neil Kinnock said. Nuclear deterrence is 'unnecessary", he said. First because a Soviet occupation IS nonsense); second because the Soviet Union has no intention of invading Western true). Despite thehue and cry that followed - and despite all predictions to the contrary — Labour has not fallen in the polls.

In: the nock's Army' 1naveHosI Sunday, the EUCS backed up the press, the Soviet threat. But, Duory. the out Turaterausl Friday issue the the Soviet will inand bv putdisarmament the of avoiding further on 'the Should the opposiEVElI unilitcu has already to not 'feasible' (which Europe (which is tain is loser that 'Soviet is totally much shape going Since ment, the media have knows Ivusl ding in line.

"Tories Ill on nuclear tamnbe ec that nonstory another:

' But electricians? leader Eric opposed to ment.

leader forced 'Mr Kinnock weathered the storm well. His false arcume lls ove nuclear issues have not done him much damage his supporters feared. But he still not man who prime minister.' Alongside all the garish headlines "searching for the right wing split', the faithful. bourgeois press have struggled tind statistical proof for their assertions that emphasises getting rid of the bomb. They have failed 'More voters worried nour s defences ' claimed the Sunday limits lasl wcckenu. Labour's greatest liability in the election campaign is now its detence policy, according to this week's poll CONCUCLed TOT the Observer by the Harris Research Centre,' the article began.

defence has jumped place, as voters L COn• Sunday have already ICIULCU audyses Peter Kellner, no unilateralist, summed this us, writing in the Independent on Monday 1 June 'This weekend's present a conundrum,' he began. "They register that defence has become a major election issue in voters minds, that most dislike DOIT S policy but that Labour's overall sup Doll rau ul ocen uculcu by late last week.' the four Hull. reasons Kellner gave wa that 'those who say their loyalties al f swaved defence tend to be non-Labour voters already' morning of Tuesday 2 June, TV-AM's rolling ICLCTC opinion from Saturday May to Monday only one percentage point wewlalo mne toul point margin of error for this poll.

Meanwhile, CND last week published the results of a survey conducted fol them by Gallup betweer 8-13 May on SUDDOII OI policy. Overall, only 45 per cent of respondents approv. ed of Tory policy, while 41 per cent disapproved and 14 per cent didn't know While there is wariness about Labour's position there is not the Tories defence policy Events of the past week all go to show what nucieal disarmers in •Lilc have occial call. 1983. Promising to SUICC nOl albatross for Labour.

But, like all other policies which ai c viciously opposed by the ruling the popular majority which potentially exists for nuclear disarmament anone unc cicclolaid of this country has to be fought for and won. That can only be done by a conSISICII! policy that starts pointing out the truth If Labour does not win the election the right wing will undoubted v launch a massive campaign deman.

ped. The evidence of th campaign is clear. Not onHulaterd nuc cal disarmament necessary if does not campaigned for. lead to Labour's support falling.

Socialist Action | idions ONE OF the delightful things about an election campaign, like any major political event, that it forces political positions clearly out into the open. Where people and parties stand in the political process is cruelly exposed. For no person, and no party, has this been more true at this election than the in the Sunday. Times the same day, put it even more accurately: 'His (Owen's) historical achievement Lo ave elvls malce dominate Britain with the smallest poll percentage o any modern Tory leader.

This message evel to. SD Nottingham North quit on Saturday declaring he was 'absolutely disgusted' with their campaign, and that it

← SpeechThe election and after →

Something wrong on this page?