[Register indiages members nights BRIEFING NOT THE I…]

Scan page 11

Register indiages members nights BRIEFING NOT THE I Socialist Organiser Alliance "DON'T register - defy the NEC" is the call that I as chairperson of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy make to our registered supporters as CLPD undertakes an advisory postal ballot on registration.

CLPD will take its final ANDREW WIARD (REPORT)

position on whether or not to register at its AGM in January and the final decision lies with the registered supporters there - but the outcome of the ballot will crucial in moulding opinion.

On the face of it I suppose it seems strange that someone who has advocated the implementation of conference decisions for years should be so determined the CLPD should not register. But there are very clear reasons why this Conference decision should be defied and why CLPD above all others should not register.

I actually think that a voluntary register is a good idea, for at a glance any member could learn about the nature of a pressure group, who to contact to join and whether they financial position of the group is so dire that they'd forever be shelling out money to keep it going!

CLPD gave all that sort of information to Walworth Road ages ago and we were quite happy to do so. I think we would even want to comply with a compulsory regis THE LAST Labour Party conference endorsed the National Executive's action in setting up a register of Labour Party groups by a substantial majority. The majority of the Left which was and remains opposed to the Register is now faced with a problem - to what extent should we feel bound by conference decisions?

Certainly we have always campaigned for conference decisions to be binding on the Parliamentary Party. That is enshrined in the CLPD constitution and is based on the very reasonable expectation that, in a party system of democracy, people who stand for public office for a party have some obligation to implement the policies of that party when in government.

But we surely also support the rights of minorities to continue to express their views. We have ourselves made use of this right when we continued to pursue demands for constitutional changes which had been defeated by conference.

We specifically campaigned against the three year rule to allow us to bring back defeated demands without procedural obstacles. And we have never argued ter if it were a Conference decision.

But the NEC are not really talking about a register, are they? They won't give a second glance at all the information that is sent to them.

This so-called register is a fraudulent vehicle for expulsions and I will not accept compliance with a Conference decision that is no more than a licence to expel socialists from our party - and nor must CLPD.

If we are to hold the line on expulsions it is no good saying, as Peter Hain and Vladimir Derer are doing, "support the present leaderthat back-bench Labour MPs should not be allowed to express minority views.

So there are clearly limits to the extent to which we are bound by conference decisions. That is not to say-we are not bound in any way by conference decisions, since we are always bound in some way by the need for party unity - never more so than at election time when disagreements on policy matters are necessarily subsumed in the effort to make electoral gains.

The only conclusion we can draw about the extent of conference sovereignty in relation to the activities of rank and file members of the party is that it is a grey area. And a grey area which stops well short of democratic centralism.

Our actions must therefore be determined by the individual circumstances of the case, taking into account ship, comply with the register, and fight expulsions" This is a recipe for an almighty defeat. • First of all the present leadership is not supportable - Michael Foot is a stumbling liability and is acting as a trojan horse for the Right. How can we be expected to rally round Foot after his Falkland position, his statement on Peter Tatchell and his vote against Paul Boateng's endorsement [as parliamentary candidate, to name but a few?

Foot has anaesthetised sections of the Left which can't shake off memories of his radical past and he has es the great weight of a majority conference decision, but taking other things into account as well.

The case against the register, which forms common ground within CLPD, deals with the arbitrary nature of the powers it seeks to confer on the NEC and the effect of these on the rights of individual constituency parties and unofficial groups. These arbitrary powers also provide a case against registering, since the register runs completely against the autonomy granted to constituent parts of a federal party.

Not to register may be to defy a conference decision, but to register is to accede in the defiance of the party's structure and many years of history.

One can only opt for the least bad, as we are forced to do in many other circumstances.

Some people argue, for instance, that because the Labour Party seeks to replace bad laws with good laws by legal means, it is wrong to defy bad laws. But defiance of Tebbit's laws is demanded by their devastating effects on the rights of individuals and groups. It can be argued that the register creates a similar necessLobbying Labour's NEC in lade lt inat mucn easier 1o ne kent to take control o the NEC.

Secondly, once comply with the register (and CLPD would be allowed to register), you effectively isolate those still further whom the NEC seeks to expel.

GLC Briefing has taken a lead in refusal to register. I confidently expect the NEC to 'lose' GLC Briefing's letter of refusal because although as convenor/treasurer I'm not telling them how many GLC councillors are paid up members of this Left caucus, I can assure them it is far more than the four evi ity within the party.

I do not think there is an absolute case against registering, especially if CLPD's very existence was at stake. But at present CLPD is not under opposition to the witch-hunt which is all they would need to expel to bring down the GLC administration. Let them try it!

I urge all registered CLPD supporters to vote no to registration balist and to thendostal AGM in County Hall on January 29 determined to keep the most important organisation on the Left from falling into the Right's trap of legitimising expulsions.

Stand firm. We have strength in numbers and elected positions - let's use them to our advantage. "THE ISSUE of the supremacy of conference decisions is not a simple one. In the past the Right of the Labour Party used it to harass dissenters in the party.

"For the Left the issue is one which must combine a respect for the rights of conference and a defence of those who are in the minority. It is the basis of democratic socialism"

Those words, written in September 1981 by Dick Clements; formerly editor of Tribune and now political adviser to Michael Foot, go right to the heart of the current argument about whether we should comply with the register of groups allowed to operate within the party.

The 1982 annual conference accepted the register by an overwhelming majority. The argument that the Left has always fought for the supremacy of conference decisions and must, therefore, comply with the register, is clearly a strong one. But in reality it is not so clear cut.

Consider, for instance, the case of two Labour MPs, Leslie Solley and Konni Zilliacus, who were expelled from the party in 1949.

That, too, was a conterence decision, and the charge against them, in the words of Sam Watson, speaking on behalf of the NEC, was that they "had persistently and consistently opposed the policy of the party as decided by annual conference" To the intolerant Right wing of those days, such dissent was an offence carrying a sentence of expulsion.

The Left opposed that philosophy and fought against the expulsion of Solley and Zilliacus. It did so because while accepting the principle of conference sovereignty, it recognised, correctly, that conference surrendered that supremacy when it used its position to to usurp the rights of constituency parties and individual members.

Policy decisions should always be binding on the party's elected spokesmen. No one can doubt that.

But decisions affecting the democratic rights of individuals are ditferent. That is not just a piece of sophisticated casuistry, because even elected party representatives are free to dissent from conference decisions from the back benches without fear of expulsion.

And in anything other than a democratic-centralist organisation, it is quite right that they should be able to do so.

Dissent and non-compliance with the register is a similarly honourable position which does not contradict our belief that conference policy must be implemented by the party's elected representatives.

For the register places adverse restrictions on the functioning of dozens of legitimate groups and thousands of individuals in the party in order to deal with the problem of one group which the NEC regards as illegitimate' As such, it represents an unacceptable infringement of the rights of groups and the individuals who belong to them.

And if we believe in all conscience that the register does represent such an infringement, then we have the right to refuse to comply with it without compromising our belief in the sovereignty of conference.

For, as democratic sócialists, of course we accept the supremacy of cunterence. But as Dick Clements pointed out, we must also reconcile that with protection of the rights of minorities. If we accept the register now, we must inevitably later accept expulsions. Both are unacceptable infringement of the rights of individuals and groups and as such undermine us as a democratic socialist party.

On that basis, we can and must vote against registration.

----- pull-quotes -----

by Jon Lansman

HANDS OFF HORNSEY I

NEC MUST FIGHT THE SOCIA

Andy Harris Or

Nigel Williamson