Devon Labour Briefing no. 34

LABOUR—TAKE THE POWER

¥ 2 gs

Anti-Poll

r Ta

Lnion

SS

wy

Le =

ae Hs

Ca

e rmitr

y i

toe8.

oY

fo

rWware

Aq aa

bs

oa A

uy

Cu foe ht

campaigns across the country, the Of course, ghlig d a 8, important first stage has to be the main plank of resistance in local. 1 first phase must be non-

to set up Oo ensure that

J t ‘ Oolves checking o x oub the level o support for p eS resistance among the people of the Tr Hxeter. An area will be leafletted a law with a double sided leaflet. One the pocke 1 of the eaflet will contain people, It ] will have a people ar

Box 200,

/ Y & DEVON Exeter Flying Post, i ‘ 1,Parliament Street, Exeter

© are doing away with the rates system and replacing it with the community charge, own es the POLL TAX, Instead of paying rates on your house or flat, each person the age of 18 will have to pay the poll tax. Some people will ‘“wstem-- some people living alone and those wealthy enough

g, which currently means that they pay higher than average rates. Many

’ peopie will be war f. For example the official figures show that the average rates in Exeter are £385 per year, The poll tax is likely to be £220 per person, meaning £440 in

a household of 2 people. Once again it's a case of the Tories helping the rich at the expense of those who can ill afford it.

The poll tax has been through Parliament and is now law. Token gestures and petitions will not now stop it. But cdo not despair there are still things that can be done to stop it,if enough people are willing to take a stand. We are trying to unite those who want to defeat the

poll tex. Consider the following; 5

“I/we are prepared to delay our registration to make it hard for them to compile the register, eg. does your dog/cat eat forms?

“I/we will refuse to register. ( The re is a danger of £50 fine and other penalties.)

“I/we are prepared to give money to a fund to help pay fines for those who are willing to fight but could do with some financial support.

“I/we are prepared to refuse to pay the tax, ( this too could involve the courts.)

* I/we are prepared to help the campaign by canvassing, raising funds, delivering leaflets, stewarding meetings etc.

alae woe

arrived

a to the the massive destruc

class organisations and the annihilations of millions of people. The ‘’democratic’ process whereby this poll tax was arrived ab is, of course, spurious.

‘24 Around is covered the Exeter and East Devon Anti-poll tax union will need -to become a delegate co-ordinating body.

Although many on the left take this as axiomatic, we normally work within the law because on the whole it is wiser to do so in a capitalist society which allows enough room to manoeuvre without

martyring ourselves and where there is mass consent to conform.

With elsewhere Briefing.

This theme is dealt in this edition of

The poll tax challenges consent.

On a more pragmatic level, the issues of encouraging and actualisation of the breaking of that consent have to be taken on Re-establishing solidarity is essential. The display of posters should help in this, by giving a visible signal that opposition is there. Where people are still in the process of making. up their minds this Signal could well become an important factor. The campaign also acknowledges the contributions that can be made by those, who for whatever reasons, are not actually prepared to break the law. Again there is optimism that those prepared to 5 registration may came to later when they see the the campaign and have had chances to talk thro issues. Even if they merely and do eventually regis period of deferal will placing an extra burden compiling the register and therefore deflect some of their labours. — a aelieinan in this and throughout is a recognition of the act that there _ to be hundreds of people prepared ‘to resist and the material circumstance of the people involved. If there are only a couple of hundred in the while of the Exeter 4 East Devon area,

who are 1g st

non-registration will be merely an ac of martyrdom. Individual non-registration will be a token gesture no more useful in the end then the hollow leaflet campaign of the Exeter Labour Party. Mass non- registration is likely to make the due process of the law unworkable. This in turn will reduce the potential for suffering

of those refusing to register. Tf funds, whether in credit unions or some other form, built up,

those who do, in the event feel the sharp end of the law need not

than anyone else in

suffer more

the campaign.

The issue of the material circumstances of those fighting the poll tax must not be underestimated. However, it should also be recognised that many will

find the Avoidance of

be severely pressed to money to pay the tax.

suffering in the short term by registering will not prevent suffering later when the tax has to be paid.

Other anti-poll tax campaigns are likely to spring up in Exeter. The TUC are expected to run one, but the requirement that the law should not be broken reflects ®ither their deep and underlying pessimism about the possibility of a genuinely successful campaign or their eagerness to co-operate and eollude with the ruling class for whatever motives. This does not mean that they should be ignored. Critical interventions have to be made. Platforms should be shared with such campaigns so that there can be public debates about the way forward. Also it would help avoidance of duplication which could have unnecessary financial implications for all involved.

There is no harm in the collection

of petitions or sophisticated publicity stunts or gathering of information, though the former 2

nave limited value.

which was Councillor, useful inspiration.

SOurce of

Rews of the campaign has not been well received by the right of the Labour Party Ignoring the performance of one city councillor who was willing to abandon party policy on unilateralism, the asic nd members in the poll tax union were vilified for refusing to adhere

OUTH WEST OCIALIST CONFERENCE

my nf

d two years ago it has been developi following ou

jew groups. /

blished,

launch in the South West with our successful conference in Taunton las:

October.

licies through its own policy rev

gether activists inside and outside of the Labour Pa

The Socialist Conference is a broad-based and open organisa aunch at Chesterfiel

strong regional network has now been esta

alternative socalist po

tion bringing to:

Since its

Our second South West Socialist Conference

will be at:

FILWOOD SOCIAL CENTRE,

Filwood Broadway,

Filwood,

Bristol

on

March 11th

5.00pm

£3 Waged/£1 Unwaged

10.30am

Further details:

0823-286200

. Bridgewater, 0278-450562 0272-772218

, 28 Whitmore Road, Taunton

Dave Chapple, 4 Gordon Terrace,

Pete Crack, !15a Birchwood Road, Bristol 4

Peggy Walker

OTA

(2)

ey =P

mon

avitree hospital, The Princess igabeth Orthopaedic hospital

West of England Eye

‘yy. Would it become self-

g ¥ a it be split up into units based on potential income generation? -An Orthopaedic hospital and an Eye nftirmary could both sell

Other ho (mental Hospital and the ringing Budleigh Tiverton be part Will ’op excellen the Devo second peripher It is pe most of care of services health p

ny)

uw

“Fh OD

ting e b centralised n General U class servic ye? rhaps, sign the beds des the elderl for people robl s and or mental init. The t

5 5 fa iD td £0 ch ie ob

fu by

andicap an 6 issue 0

Fh

The whi provide patien

the Regional Health Authority Will be stre

Will have direct control of hospitals and family practitioners committ es. The most serious consequences will probably be in the the white paper community care is hardly mentioned!

i]

a Practices will be able CO apply for their own budgets for buying a range of servis direct from hospitals This w damage the primary health o

te paper was supposed to more choie here

" ies tr WH bh

Hh

ck A ™

Cr

ea

ky ray fete

ad O oS

foe ed

oO

Ko ct tee

ch Oe hy tr rr’ ch mo Tm w@ or

oF a oO Ge ct KH titres

Ha) ct ct - o re re, ©

aw

he od aot oO ee a Cer Ku

io aad 0) ie)

t MB

Dp m5

tem be ay re 10

SJ eh t c Pa

p 7 ee if 1 rat

rie (oD pw ion

fa}

5 « my

m |

o re) bet wa oo be . ear CD ee

be na

te Pros mM at <b ct

oO Orme) 0

be

my

thy

tit

Mg

He me Fh

My

3 Us a ft jo in th

oe “ ot

0 5 Hh ie Hy

a for Pol t

Ji +}

movement.

dockers were

plecevork

work

ht for y day in

ey

ay

He.

» ct mL fi ch

QO

be PR

jt

c a 4 Cu ne wh ct es ct Ee we a: OW) Bo

ch eh I

work

4 w

nd

rod

aD

AS ot ct Eb

re

de OC) > rey ct &

nd

Tr in oo o peut ta He) h pen e A b He Qs cd oa Qos me nah

bed a] i be He)

fue ey wt cr Hy o oO c oO it Pa

4 G Oo Ou 43] ue) fe

Sd

oD i

Fa

iD QO a i)

bo fet

wrt oO

i :

de a minimum

wage to docks there was no work This greatly increased securit 30, 000 dockers then scheme. Militant a O’s and 80’s) improv working conditions also challenges to th Scheme and a

major rationali of industry which remains a problem today.

After the 1964 election the Wilson Government WAS faced with a confrontation with dockers over pay. In response a commission of enquiry was set up under Lord Devlin which recommended a pay increase tied. to a further

examination of the industry as a whote.

Devilin’s First rounc of recommendations introduced in 1966 completed the decasualisation process and ended the piecework system of payments ing of the ’pen’ Baler was tied to

i g a 2d work il sker: WAS undertaken by tieegieterad labour.

ooo ow oO ‘AK oO OD ie] 4h = oy

chy Oo

Oi

% pe 5 in

@ Y i ff Ch iD et Ha) o> ‘od Kh

ty oD ve am

ommittes lg eat inst osit a0 lea

SE ee

g2'o 0 0

. T,

a i a

oi ce)

by D rea) “cr a

ia

MmzAD Mth tHo mt cat r) ftw

_ ct me) 0 He ny fe ct Hh oO a yg

rap os

ty foe yo

aa

wa

oO + Kh Ha

tH he

Oo et rs pe a R A 4 Cu mF wv at}

ww dla a

mr &

rah)

OO 6 SK

ws ; i

ct

a iD ry ry

ct O Qo

som oO

ray

oC a CL bY

om RR eH i? ct ai i eo a a]

cH tr rt oO

ctkeH o . rh Fy

a Hy if

in

ia

in

Ch wr c

rs

contin

a ind sal o bo wy f+ om) *<

Cu th go ip

ke

S Suarantee redundancies for

ef bey Hs < cs) e < OD Qu wy

compulsory

rl

te

NC

r Bontngs

How many questions ]j

had

way movement guestion tney suffering Hattersleys innocks key. elected

labour particular whether Those the oie

that members the answer i teils socialists from incurab or severe attacks explain that 2 In a democracy like

is the

US a are

iێ aqoses

4 .

will ours only way to

K is g ~

etting

advance. (A minor problem is their Severe lack of success in actually getting elected. } Those who say otherwise are evil revolutionaries according to the Hattock mode of thinking.

Smash the State

By contrast with the present Labour "leaders" revolutionaries think that the transition to a new social svstem will be based on shattering the ower of the old. This will require the working class to tak ca power trom the old aie class. Mar view that the forces of t be used to try to stop class putting paid to capi revolutionary movement will have to prepare politically for this. Our thinking on this S$ based on long i actions of the state es throughout this

Y D

tate will e working

aia

in many countr century and befor

Between the tired old reformers and the revolutionaries sit a number of comrades who tell us that they are revolutionaries but of a special sort. Unlike the old crude Trotskyists they have subtle ways of bringing about the revolution. What is needed they tell us is some new way of raising consciousness

Graham Bash and Bryn Griffiths join our own Peter Bowing in making a trio of such "revolutionaries". Peter nas written in DLB for January 1989 a Gefence of proportional representation (PR) while sh and Griffiths have attacked the same idea in the national Briefing of iith January. Although they argue on different sides I am interested in the common basis of their arguments and the reformist thinking of both contributions to the debate.

Perhaps it is best to start at home. Peter runs through a standard set of attacks on the current fizst past the post method of election we have now. His skill in presenting the case should not prevent us from looking beyond the points he raises.

Derelict Premises

The premise o that the fir te

bour winning office. In fact the whole article does not go any further

than that step. It _5ugg ests that the

am le mee

orces tor socialism sfhouid be trengthened by reforming the state, xtending public ownership and strengthening the unions. I find all this about as useful as asking Chester Long to resist the poll tax. The last Labour Government fell after the "winter of discontent". During the 1978 - 79 winter the Labour Government (Tony Benn included) staked its life on its determination to hold down the pay of some of the poorest people in our society. The dogged determination it has never shown against the interests of the ruling class was all there when it came to hitting the poorest. In what way would the election of these peopie help advance socialism? I can only think of one. It will demonstrate to the declining numbers of workers who ave faith in them that their onfidence is misplaced.

The Bash and Griffiths article at least points out that behind the Tories in parliament stand the power of the city, the armed forces and civil service. Peter sadly does not seem to have noticed that the state is not led by the democratically elected MPs. Our MPs have aominor job, they must keep the punters distracted while the bosses pick our pockets.

Peter is so busy looking at the puppets he has forgotten why they are there. Ail the points he makes assume that we

should keep our eyes on the puppets and not seek out the real state hidden from view.

Bash and Griffiths, at first sight, seem closer to Marxism than does Peter Bowing. A second look reveals that there is really nothing in it. They are tied to the Labour Party body and soul. They see a future Labour Government as a great gain for the working class. They are as certain of the need for a united Labour movement as the Pope is convinced that a united Christianity is god given. Naturally we can ail agree that a united labour movement is a "good thing". However, this is not a timeless truth. At times it is better to split the movement than to hang onto unity. Those who doubt this should reflect on whether Dr Owen should be a Labour Party member.

New Type of Party?

The Labour Party has proved to be a barrier to socialism. It has run

entrism. The Labour Party contains many

cE GReiy Vgustes oo)

people who deserve a better fate than being foot soldiers in Kinnock's army. Revolutionaries should be with them helping to open eyes to the nature of Labourism and to win them to a revolutionary movement. Kidding people that Labour unity is to be defended above all things hinders rather than heips this process.

And Back to PR

I have not actually written much about PR itself. What I think follows from the argument presented above is that PR is a’ distraction. The key to opening the door marked socialism is the recognition by millions of people that the politics of Labour are useless and that a socialist revolution is needed. A Labour government may be a help here

| Parliamentary . Support for it.

(but only in demonstrating that Labour

will never bring Socialism). The present electoral system offers a better chance of getting Kinnock into office than does PR. it will,

therefore, help the whole movement see how useless the Labourites are.

Much more important, however, is the point that all this discussion about ‘che reform of the rules of the

Parliamentary game distracts from the need to convince workers to stop the game entirely.

In conclusion we that only a direct democracy can the needs of the working important part of any work is to

revolutionaries say meet class. An revolutionary's

continuously expose democracy and undermine Every distraction from

that truth is an aid to

Simple

reformism.

GeofE Barr Exeter WRP

fe

LACKIES OF

IMPERIALISM AND BRIEFING

REFORMS T 3 .SCUM BEWARE CTrcrskys Nephe w)

a UST WHEN You THOUGHT ir cae SAFE TO MENTION=~- Xe ELECTIONS XK MASS PARTIES

XK ANIMAL RIGHTS K VOTES HURRICANE ROGER

HIT TOWNS

| J

repost from Peter Bo

I very ae

i#

iE

ing.

much welcome Geoff's ontribution to the

parliamentary socialisn

mriticisms my arbicl

last Devon Labour Briefing. I

would like to make 3 i

reply:

© of

idea further

> look raising

First, Geoff ridicules the that we should explore

the ideological field and for some new way of consciousness’. If political power operates through the coercive, the economic, (sanction and reward, ) and the ideclogical, then capitalism has balance in favour re)

ideological. The state in

form of bodies of armed men is not the only barrier to the working ng

elass realis oS

socialism; and it is

that fact which makes bourgecis democracy possible From confusion here Geoff goes on to misunderstand the power of Parliament. Yes Parliament is largely a talking shop hardly able to call tO account governments whicn e1 es

captive, (and 1 victims of the capitalist state. But Parliament is powerful in the sense that it legitimises capitalist rule. Socialists not indifferent to the make of Parliament, nor the government in office for these things have a direct effect on the balance of power in the class struggle. Also if you do not have enough support to win a popular majority in Parliament, you don’t have enough to. effect a revolution. Rest assured that it is not the left which needs to destroy democracy to advance its cause.

are up

Party has socialism’.

*The Labour a barrier to

Second, proved

Make sure of your copy of the fortnightly Labour Briefing. Annual subscriptions are £12 (individuals), £24 (institutions). Write to PO Box 457, London SW2 5UZ (cheques, etc., payable to Labour Briefing). :

NA@ME....ccssscorsccernseeranesennssensesransccnnscenssennasssenscenssersets

IGGTOSS.eceerevnsesnnnencernnannent

ec icaccigadeceuaneceveovecevesconscavenssuscusensessnssnseqesencraasess oc e5NSs!

Fe i estas ne advuuagensmenssdae 2 eet

No to PR,

Given the growing demoralisation about _Labour’s electoral prospects, it is not surprising that some sections of the Party have turned to Charter 88 and propor-. tional representation as 2 means of combatting Thatcherism and its encroachment on our democratic rights.

The LCC, along with Robin Cook, Austin Mitchell, John Cunningham. Jeff Rooker and Anne Clwyd, has now taken up the call for PR.

MPs close to Kinnock, such as Dr Reid and John Evans, have argued for an electoral pact with the centre parties.

This is the context in which Charter 88 was bom.

The Charter has gained some support from people on the left. To those comrades we must patiently explain that Charter 888 is not a working-class based movement, and to support it is to abandon the strategy of a working-class united front in favour of a popular front that straddles and blurs class lines.

The Charter has bought the support of the likes of Lord Jenkins, Lord Scarman and Anne Sofer at a price. There is no mention of Irish self-determination or civil rights, nor of the demand of the Scottish people for an Assembly,norany call for devolution. i )

The Charter suffers from a purzly parliamentary focus, ignoring the extra-parliamentary struggies that are essential to any fight for democratic rights.

But its popular front, coalitionist basis is most clearly demonstrated by its support for PR, a demand that comes from the small centre parties and now

espoused by the more defcatist elements oa Labour’s right-

* Socialists ”

Boe

/--. Why should socialists sex PR

- 99 af enemy? After all, isn’t the present electoral system ~ blatantly: unfair? And isn’t it

By Graham Bash

* Hackney North . CLP | and Bryn Griffiths -

_ Tottenham CLP reece

right that the distribution of |

seats in Parliament should closely resemble the distribution of total votes? _

Yes, the present system is unfair. It is unfair because the real power — the unelected and unaccountable extra-parliamentary power of the Tories and their friends — doesn’t lie in Parliament, but in the City boardrooms, the military, the secret service, the civil service and the media.

Whichever party wins office, capitalism retains power. Despite the vital importance of the democratic rights we still possess, bourgeois democracy is a fraud. PR would only serve to perfect that fraud.

Not one of the five majority Labour governments received a vote of more than 50% of the electorate, not even in the 1945 landslide. With PR, not a single majority Labour Government would have been formed.

Inadequate.

Our view is that however inadequate, a Labour Governmeat represents a gain for the working-class and vital experience on the road to real power. PR would deny us that experience for the forseeable future.

democracy, we would end up with fewer options than ever. PR, by its very nature, produces hung parliaments and coali-

tions. The inevitable post-clec-’

tion deals would render election mandates —a central plank of parliamentary democracy — impossible. -

Labour’s right-wing would always have a perfect alibi for

ditching radical parts of its”

programme. The bourgeoisie

tho Mae 2 ‘Ge = Laan Ay | Already nd re o hefo befo

and coalitions!

would enjoy a constitutiong guaranice ayainst a Labou. Govemment vith an electore

mandate for nti-capitalis

change.

With little eiec ‘oral pressur to hold it together, the Labew Party. could begin) to disin tegrate, and the trade union lin could itself be threate “44.

Such developments wouldt, welcomed by some s ocialis', enticed by the idea of el. sctingg dozen or 80 revolutionar,7 “4s, For them, this process wo ald), part of the necessary bres kp of Labourism. o

Contrary: ::

We take acontrary view. Th creation of the Labour Party an its link with the trade unions is an historic conquest for th: working-class. f

However bureaucratised, whatever its political limitations, the very existeace of z unitary structure for the labour movement provides a forum foi united working class action.

Its break-up would be a mas- { sive defeat, which would strengthen, not weaken, refor- | mism. The working class would thereby be less able to take the

power into its own hands. -

Our perspective offers no short-cut solutions. The ten years of Thactcherism have been the direct consequence of demoralisation after five years of fudging and betrayal by a right-wing Labour Government. Thatcherism is the price we have paid for our failure of take on and defeat the rightwing leaders of the Labour

_ Party and the unions. ~ In the name of greater

Our movement faces a deep crisis which requires profound solutions. In this context, Charter 88 will be scen as an ephemeral diversion.” -_

-: Our task is to regenerate the base of the labour movement, rebuild ourhaemmoraging class

- organisations and struggle to

construct a revolutionary leadership within the Labour Party and the trade unions."

- It is a lifetime’s task. Unfortunately, there is no alternative.