Wrong on Leyland strike? Writeback

Scan page 12

Because of the lunatic: SUPPUKTERS WUKAUNG CHRIS KNIGHT of London Labour Briefing replies to John O'Mahony's and John Bloxam's Open Letter about the editorial on the GLC and the fares fight in the March Briefing (Socialist Organiser no. 75).

for these for its major manifesto tactic at times, but cedi "open (which is how you describe Lords' decision, and increases: they do see the plank, what will it fight for? power is always a mistal •PAT LALLY'S article in Socialist Organiser (Feb. 25) entitled 'Failure of Leadership at LVL" contains numerous inaccuracies and distortions which have to be exposed.

The final shopfloor mass meeting did vote by a slender majority to carry on the strike. However in the midst of the angry scenes at the end of the meeting the Strike Committee agreed to take a ballot in order to confirm the result.

Many people at the meeting have said that a count should have taken place because the result was by no means clear to everyone.

However, immediately the vote was taken many people started leaving and so this was not possible. The news of the split vote and the ballot produced a domino effect with the other mass meetings.

When the results of all the mass meetings were received by the strike committee, which was composed of all unions on-site, the decision was made to end the strike. This is the correct record.

Link up

All through Lally's article he adopts an amazingly sectarian attitude towards the Strike Committee. At no time did the strike committee drop their demand for the withdrawal of all redundancies and this is precisely what the strike committee meant by an "honourable settlement' • At no time were the strike committee opposed to building political support shopfloor started: their campaign against the redundancies. How can Lally get these facts so wrong?

The work of the LAC on the picket lines did more to alienate militants towards the revolutionary left than the whole of the media put together. The LAC were seen as divisive and unable to contribute constructively.

As for Socialist Challenge supporters in the dis-te Illn had a oned work- ing relationship with the pult. rve lau a gun "*» strike committee because of GLC ana ine tarts ryut the work we did to win the dispute.

We had our differences with the strike committee over how to win the dispute. Our comrades in the strike argued for delegations to be organised to leaflet, visit and win support from other plants.

Delegations

They led the delegations to Manchester and elsewhere in the north west.

Our comrades in other industries won the commitment of a CSEU stewards conference to organise strike action should LVL carry out their threat of closure. We were able to play a part in winning the majority of the strike committee to this position.

We had better things to do than give Coyne a full report on what was said at LAC meetings. We did tell him what a good idea it was to build support in the Midlands for our dispute.

approach of the LAC we Lords' decision, and had

had to formally disassociate

ourselves from their suicidal actions.

It was ironic that the actions of the LAC lost their two supporters in the plant during the course of the dispute. Demands on revolutionaries working in the industry by comrades who arrive on the picket line from out of the blue is never the best way to carry out joint work. The experience of. LVL proves this conclusively.

SOCIALIST CHALLENGE AT LVL: had blaming blaming us for these Dear S.0, for its major manifesto plank, what will it fight for? We invite readers to send us their letters, up to a usual maximum length of 400 words.

Send to Socialist Organiser, c/o 28. Middle Lane, London N8.