LABOUR'S TAME LEFT WING

Victor Class Struggle in Parlia Gollancz £3.90 350 pp. The Industrial Relations Act, legislated by the Tory government in 1972, was in fact prepared by the Labour gov. ernment of 1966-1970—in particular by the attempts of Harold Wilson and Barbara Castle to force through 'In Place of Strife' in the teeth of overwhelming opposition from trade unionists.

As Eric Heffer MP says in his new book, published earlier this month, the Labour government handed the Tories weapons with which to beat both the Labour Party and This was obvious to everyone. The leading Tory lain Macleod admitted as much in the Commons on April 16, 1969, when he said of Barbara Castle:

am in warm support of her in this matter. I give her the further assurance that as soon as possible we will build on the foundations which she is laying and, in particular, that agreements entered • into shall be enforceable by law.' Such a position-the Labour leaders carrying out attacks not only on the people who voted them into office, but on the very trade union movement which created the Labour Party-placed an important responsibility on the 'left' Labour MPs.

It was for this reason that during the time of the Labour government the Socialist Labour League waged a consistent campaign to make the 'left' MPs fight Wilson. In fact, they did not conduct such a fight, and in his book, "The Class Struggle in Parliament, Heffer is very much on the defensive about this.

He says: "Too often there are those in the Labour movement who underestimate the role of the left and, even worse, give the impression that Labour's left during this period (i.e. from the Labour victory of 1964 to the end of 1972) conducted a sham fight' (p. 136).

Yet what is the record? In the period 1964-1966 Heffer himself, along with other Left MPs, excused Wilson's failure to introduce socialist measures on the grounds that a majority of four did not allow it.

In 1966 Wilson got a majority of almost 100. But-as Heter now admits-—Wilson sought a larger majority, not to legislate socialism, but to railroad through • anti-union legislation in the face of any opposition there might be in the Parliamentary Labour The 'left' did argue against this in the PLP but it remained at the level of arguIt is true that 56 Labour MPs voted against Barbara Castle's White Paper On March 3, 1969, but it was known at that time that the Tories were not going to vote against, and that therefore the government was not at risk.

Heffer's argument is that it would have been wrong to bring down the government— inded, that it was the central task to preserve the Labour government.

But would the working class have been in a more dangerous position today if the 'lefts' had fought Wilson to the extent of bringing down his government?

On the contrary, it would have been better to bring the government down and then fight again for a Labour government based on socialist policies, than to permit Wilson . to open the door to power for the Tories, with all the resultant attacks on the basic rights of the working class.

Heffer recognizes that this is what the Labour government did.

He also admits: 'I do agree that the Labour government did not advance us one step towards a real and fundamental transformation of capitalist society' (p. 269). sistently denied at that time that such legislation could be introduced by a Labour government.

In so doing they disarmed the working class and facilitated Wilson's attacks on the unions.

The Labour leadership-and following them the Torieswere undoubtedly encouraged by the outcome of a confrontation with the unions deliberately contrived by Wilson after the 1966 election.

Such a confrontation was required by the Labour premier in order to create the conditions for putting his prices and incomes policy on a statutory basis. His oppor tunity occurred with the seamen's strike of June 1966.

It was during this strike that Wilson made his notorious witch-hunting speech about 'tightly-knit groups of politically motivated men'. On television he warned that the strike was 'against the state and against the community The leadership of the National Union of Seamen buckled before this offensive. But this was also one of the most discreditable episodes in the history of the Labour 'left'.

When Wilson invoked the Emergency Powers Act against the seamen, left-wing MPs like Foot, Mikardo and Heffer spoke against it.

But they did not force a division and Wilson's measures went through unopposed.

Heffer now says: 'I regret that we did not vote against the introduction of the Emergency Powers Act. Whilst our opposition was sincere, our failure to vote was not entirely understood in the country.

'Many trade unionists dered why we had not ve sted. I too wonder at this and have no explanation for it' (p. 59).

It is not a question of 'sinAbove: Labour leaders sing 'Auld Lang Syne' on the platform of last year's conference. Barbara Castle who formulated 'In Place of Strife' (obscured by • microphone) is beside Wilson. cerity' but of political look. Heffer, though a remains a reformist. He this out:

"The question arises: can socialism be introduced by democratic parliamentary means? The answer is surely: in some countries, no; in Britain, yes' (p. 272).

It is this reformist political position which has prevented Heffer and those like him from really fighting the right These 'lefts' see themselves, not as an alternative leadership, but as some kind of guardians of socialist morality:

'The Labour Party has been a coalition. Within its ranks have been people of the left, the centre and the right.

"The left are always very concerned about keeping the Party true to its basic principles. At times they have sought real power within the Party and at other periods when that has appeared impossible they have acted as the Party's conscience' (p. 263).

Thus the guiding line for the 'left's' actions is always to seek a basis of whole spectrum in the Labour ing its most wing. This is means when he 'The task of of the Party is the whole party socialist nolicy.

"Tribunites" would like we the Party as a whole to adopt the platform of the left' (p. 267).

At the time Heffer wrote those words, the PLP included not only Roy Jenkins but Dick Taverne. What emerges here, out"left', spells unity with the of views withParty, includextreme right what Heffer the left wing clearly to win for a genuine - - Naturallv.