RARELY HAS the disparity between the objective situation and the Labour Party leadership been more clearly revealed than at present.
In the last six months two developments with great implications for the future of world politics have taken place. The first is the consequences of the stock market crash both for Europe and for Britain. The second is that political developments accompanying the INF treaty pose the whole question of future nuclear and foreign policy. while capital is urgently discussing these matters, the Labour leadership has nothing coherent to say As far as West European capital is concerned, already planning for a massively stepped up con• spending 'plug the gap' left by the withdrawal of Cruise and Pershing missiles. The rearmament of Europe, in the context of recession and austerity policies, bourgeoisies in Europe.
Already the contradictions and problems of bourgeois strategists. A representative of the Institute of Strategic Studies on 8 December was many in support of denuclearisation of that counNot just in the dangerously radical 'left wing but even opinions expressed in the CDU The INF treaty means that fewer people than ever believe toray that there is a 'Soviet threat' to ly have existed for the Labour Party to give a radical lead, in advocating a totally economic and political strategy in Europe based. on 'detente' with the USSR, the denuclearisation of Europe, and the use of the resources released in the economy to create jobs and improve living standards. This provides the framework of an entire economic and social policy for Labour.
Instead the Labour Party leadership seems intent upon leading the party further and further to almost to the right of Margaret Thatcher on disarmament in response to the INF treaty. Rather than taking the opportunity to explain that the Labour Party had been correct on nuclear weapons. ne explained the Labour Party's policy was now out of date and could be abandoned.
With equal alacrity John Cunningham managdirection of the one of the