CLPD and the 'right wing reality'

Scan page 10

VICTOR Schonfield's letter (SO 125) is clearly aimed at boosting Manchester Withington 'fall back' position at the expense of the constitutional amendment from Greenwich CLP. He should have made clear that the policy of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, of which he is Treasurer, is the opposite.

The following composite, drafted by Nigel Williamson, Reg Race and myself, was carried at the last CLPD AGM.

"This AGM reaffirms its support for the democratic rights of Party members to organise with other members in order to advocate their views more effectively.

'We believe that such mem ers should only nave to compi with the conditions laid down for all Party members, and that it would be mistaken and dangerous to incorporate into the Labour Party constitution the restrictions and requirements placed upon groups contained in the Manchester Withington amendment submitted to the 1982 Conference.

"Accordingly, this LAGM believes that the CLPD should not support such proposals, but instead should campaign for and support only those proposals which seek to completely reverse the 1982 decision, or which seek to establish and safeguard' the positive right of groups of Party members to organise without being subject to extra and special membership conditions (e.g. the constitutional amendment from Greenwich CLP)."

The same AGM also defeated a resolution (number 9) of support for Manchester Withington (as in Victor Schonfield's letter, and as supported also by the majority of the new CLPD EC.)

Victor Schonfield and others regarded these votes as issues of confidence' before the AGM. Now they are denying they ever really happened.

The successful composite makes clear why the Manchester Withington proposal was defeated at the CLPD AGM. The proposal accepts that Party members should be restricted in their right to organise — as the NEC's Register does. It is difficult to see why Victor Schonfield now regards this point as a "smear", , because he and others used to regard it as the main merit of the proposals.

They first argued for it in the following terms: we couldn't win outright : opposition to the Register, because the trade union leaders wanted restrictions on the groups organising in the Party; therefore the CLPD had to support the idea of the Register to win at Conference, but make it as innocuous as possible.

The 'radical' nature of the Manchester Withington proposal is an argument for the letters page of SO only: "In the London Labour Party Regional Conference in March the proposal was motivated thus: "You cannot have complete anarchy in the Labour Party" (Tony Maries, CLPD EC member, proposing the The constitutional amendment from Greenwich CLP would provide, for the first time, a clear constitutional basis for groups of Party members to organise and campaign. Under rule, it has to be voted on at this year's Party Conterence: The CLPD AGM clearly voted to support it, and indeed subsequent CLPD literature has made it a 1983 'priority' and a leaflet has called for "full support"

Yet the main speeches criticising Greenwich at the London Labour Party Conference were from CLPD officers; and Victor Schonfield now talks about its "right wing reality"

This constitutional amendment (a) writes into the Labour Party constitution, for the first time, the right of Party members to organise; (b) it does this without placing any extra or special conditions on such members and is clearly in direct opposition to the Register; (c) it delétes the clause which the right wing have