Halewood strikers queue for tax rebate defend the statement.
the disastrous Wilson-Callaghan governments of 1974-79.
It is true thạt the new campaign document contains many of the policies the lett has been fighting for. This is a victory.
It proves that the right wing have not yet been able to defeat the rank and file of the party and the gains they have made It will make it easier for Labour Party activists to link up with those, such as the Greenham Common women striking fighting Tories for LICOC policies, in whose hands lies the real of achieving DIUSJCLI them.
But events at the NEC meting WilCt Oscussed the document should remove anv coubt as whether the present right wing leadership has any intention of implementing socialist policies The NEC roundly defeated utuCe HOTOTN against incomes restraint ande u odaucud Skinner's motion that in accepting the TUC-Party Liaison Committee report the NEC recognises that it 'in no mitigates against collective bargaining and will not be used to introduce wage restraint. Green Whatever formulae are used to try and distance the new policies from the social contract on which the astabour ment fondered, both the TUC and the Labour Party are now committed to try and hold back wages.
This is a wrong and disastrous policy. Let's look at the arguments.
First, it is claimed we necu a wage policy lo stop inflation. This is not true. Keal wages in Britain have fallen in comparison with • countries ilke sweden anc Germany whose inflation THE PUBLICATION of Labour's draft manifesto on Tuesday has met with predictable hostility from the Tories and their press. Spokespersons of both the left and right in the Labour Party have united to But at the heart of the document is a repeat of 'social contract' policy of the rates have been lower. • Moreover, the truth is capitalists want a wage cut.
By the Editor Peler Shore, Shadow Chancellor, , has based his policv on a reasurv com puter model based on a 1-2 per cent wage rise while inflation continues at 4-5 per cent. Over five years this means a 20 per cent reduction in real wages!
Peter Shore also claimed wage policy • will make British industrv more competitive. It is said we cannot compete because out wage costs are too high This is false. British industry uncompetitive because its owners will not invest in new equipment. Cut protits, Trying to correct this with wage cuts is like trying to make an iron plough compete with a combine nar VeSLCI Di Star vill! farm labourers. If British DAlınacaosnao cazyMu why are they among the lowest in Europe?
Only one argument has a semblance of truth in it without a wage policy, Britain's balance of payments will soar into the red.
When Peter Shore ran budget treasury's computer last year, it told him that unless he kept warc lises wanlll lwo bel cent, there would be £28bn balanice of payments deficit.
But it also told him something else. As the New Statesman (26.11.82) said: 'profits and unearned income,' on his policies would roar away into the stratosphere' Company profits .would double becaust 'almost every element in the Shore package helps companies prosper' And that's the point.
policy is being recommended by the TU( and even Tony Benn, , but it is based on boosting profits Cal the expense of WaLCS Instead of attacking those responsible for the present crisis - thè private owners of British industry - it would launch Labour into a new social contract, a new attempt to hold back the unions, a new 'Winter of Discontent' - in short Campaign Against Racist Laws demonstration. Story page 5 Denis Skinner the which discredited Party utterly and lost it the 1979 election, and which Davee the .way for the Thatcher. government coming UnSOl conterences this new social contract should be rejected.
Plans for the general election should be drawn up based defending those conference policies which start to meet the rea needs of the working class.