Soft on Kinnock?

Scan page 10

WHAT on earth was going on in SO 173? On the back page we had an article entitled "Stand on the line Kinnock" , which said absolutely correctly, •Many Labour's leaders like Eric Heffer, Tony Benn and scores of MPs have supported Liverpool Council and the miners. Kinnock hasn't. You know why? He thinks they are both vote losers." The article goes on to outline the scabbing role Kinnock has been playing in trying to get a national ballot.

Yet in the Editorial we read "Neil Kinnock has made sympathetic speeches generally supporting the miners." Which of these two versions are you asking us to believe? When, where and what were these speeches by old stabin-the-back Kinnock, supporting the miners? The only statements he has made about the strike have been to condemn violent picketing. He has as the media pointed out last week, gone out of his way to refuse to comment, and was even opposed to a full debate in Parliament on the strike, because it would have forced him to make a statement.

Shortly before this amazing statement we have another statement which I found equally amazing. It says, "We must bring down this Tory government. Labour under Kinnock cannot be relied upon to implement the working class policies we need. Nevertheless, the Labour Party is the only immediate conceivable alternative to the Tories. We must fight for a Labour government."

What absolute nonsense!

Yes, at the present time a realistic assessment in electoral terms is that Labour is the only alternative to the Tories, but if the working class were to "bring this Tory government down" that would represent a substantial qualitative change from the situation that exists now. To bring Yes the editorial goes on to talk about fighting to commit such a Labour government to anti-capitalist policies, but in the past we have also argued against this "Labour to power with a socialist programme" approach, recognising that the Labour Party is a bosses' party, and as long as it operates through a bourgeois Parliament there is no effective way of forcing such a government to carry out such policies, especially as the election of a Labour government would demobilise the working class. Instead we have in the past argued that under such circumstances workers should fight for a "workers' government" based not on the institutions of the bourgeois state, but on the working class, and directly accountable to the working class.

To talk about the need to continue the battle in the Party for democracy, accountability and socialist policies under conditions of a general strike posed to kick out the Tories is unbelievable.

The main focus during such a general strike would be organising councils of action, workers' councils, etc., to organise distribution, workers' defence, etc., not turning up to Labour Party meetings to put forward constitutional amendments for annual conference.

It would put the labour movement in a whole new ball game where democracy, and accountability would have to be seen in terms of direct democracy and accountability in these new institutions of workers' democracy, not in terms of the type of checks, balances and safeguards which have been fought for in the Labour Party over the last few years to try to impose some control of Labour MPs working through bourgeois institutions.

In short i found the politics. of SO 173 extremely confusing. It was arguing positions which we have strongly opposed in the past, and was as has been pointed out earlier; also contradictory over Kinnock. That political organisations should change their positions is not unusual or wrong, but some explanation as to why the position has changed about face is something the readers of SO ought reasonably to expect.

Yours comradely, ARTHUR BOUGH Editor's note: Neil Kinnock has made generally supportive noises about the miners. But as the Editorial in SO 173 said, that is not enough:

"Right now the miners' strike is putting the new Labour Party leadership to the test. Neil Kinnock has made sympathetic speeches generally supporting the miners. At the same time he has talked as if the miners are to blame for picket line violence and not the police. The labour movement must demand of Neil Kinnock that he stands on the line four-square with the miners without weaseling and without talking out of both sides of his politician's mouth. Right now the miners' strike is the measure of every grouping and every individual in the labour movement. Neil Kinnock will not be forgiven if he doesn't unequivocally take sides with the miners."

The General Strike to Kick the Tories Out slogan is not in the Editorial. But we brought down the Heath government in 1974 without a general strike. It is possible again to make the country ungovernable, as in 1974.

The general strike scenario Arthur outlines and within it the possible development of working class action far beyond the boundaries and channels of routine politics - that's the best scenario, and we work for it. But there are others and we have to relate to them too. Right now, the labour movement is in an early stage of rousing itself from the depression of the last four years. The idea of taking on the Tories is very important in this process. Arthur Bough is simply mistaken that the only logical development of this idea is a general strike to kick out the Tories and what happened in 1974 is proof of it.

on I was disturbed to read "The State of Irish Solidarity" by Tony Twine in SO 169. Having attended the meeting, I found Tony's report both inaccurate and misleading. However I would like to concentrate on his references to the intervention made by members of the Labour Committee on Ireland at the meeting.

Including Tony, there were four members of the LCI at the meeting. Tony referred to the three others as supporters of Socialist Action, despite the fact that he knows I am not a supporter of Socialist Action or any other Trotskyist paper or faction.

He also was careful to distance himself from the LCI, despite being a founder member of the local group. Is this part of a deliberate attempt to portray the LCI as a front for Socialist Action? It seems that SO's position on Ireland and the LCI is deliberately ambiguous. I would appreciate a clarification.

PAUL WOZNY, Southampton LCI