For a New Leadership of the Left

[p003] For a new leadership of the Left TWO years ago, the 59th annual conference of the Labour Party, meeting at Scarborough, adopted a resolution against the H-bomb. Labour’s Left wing was jubilant, the massive trade union block vote had swung its way and it seemed that in the months ahead they could not fail to capture the commanding heights of the Labour Party. Yet the results were quite different. Mr. Gaitskell and his immediate right-wing supporters took no notice whatsoever of the conference decisions. All the ballyhoo about Labour’s democratic way of life was cast aside in favour of factional conspiracy which, immediately the conference was over, led to the formation of the ultra-right-wing group, Campaign for Democratic Socialism. Some day the truth about this faction will be known, but it becomes more and more clear that the Campaign enjoyed the support of some very wealthy and influential figures behind the scenes. This is particularly true of Lord Walston who, it appears, is one of Mr. Gaitskell’s most ardent supporters. He was recommended for a Life Peerage in January 1961 by Gaitskell. Perhaps the greatest support which the CDS enjoyed was in the Party machine itself. The three most powerful people in the Labour Party, who are not elected by any conference, are Mr. Len Williams, who was acting general secretary at the time of Scarborough, Miss Sara Barker, the national agent, and Mr. Reg Underhill, the assistant national agent. There is a direct connection between this trio and the full-time regional officers for the party, who in turn maintain a close relationship with the constituency party agents. Mr. Gaitskell received powerful backing from these sources. Private meetings of supporters were organized all over the country. The Gaitskell faction produced and still produces its own printed paper. Later, money was found to enable the extreme right-wing youth to produce their own organ, Counterblast. Official address lists appear to have been available for the organizers of the faction. In short, the Scarborough decision on the H-bomb was not worth the paper it was written on so far as the Right wing were concerned. The determination of Gaitskell to ‘fight, fight and fight again’ could not have been successful, however, if it were not for the absolute lack of opposition on the part of those regarded as the leadership of the Left wing. The keynote speech was made by Michael Foot at the end of the Scarborough discussion, when he said at a Tribune rally that ‘the debate must continue’. But the debate had, in fact, concluded. Once con- ference had decided against the H-bomb, the task was to mobilize the Party to carry out the policy of conference. Mr. Foot and others were not concerned with this. They had no intention of seriously challenging Gaitskell for the leadership of the Labour Party, and--confined themselves to sporadic demonstrations in Parliament. In the early part of 1961, the whip was withdrawn and five of these Lefts, including Foot, have since been consigned to the political wilderness. Victory for Socialism which boasts of its relations with all five, was unable to organize a single meeting of protest in any part of the country against the with- drawal of the whip. During the early months of 1961, it engaged in a witch-hunt against Trotskyists, who, it claimed, had infiltrated its ranks. Instead of a real struggle against Gaitskell to implement the conference decisions, Victory for Socialism took time out to expel so-called ‘Trotskyists’ from its own ranks. Tribune did even less. It abandoned its Brains Trust meetings. A new editor, notorious for his lack of understanding, especially of Left Labour politics, was appointed. For years he had worked as the editor of the official Transport House youth paper. After a brief spell at the Daily Herald, he joined Tribune. Such a man could not possibly inject political life into Tribune. At the first opportunity he ran for cover. This was provided for him through the courtesy of Messrs. Padley and Crossman who in Easter 1961 presented their famous H-bomb com- promise with Gaitskell. It was this compromise which changed the votes of the Amalgamated Engineering Union and USDAW, and heralded the

[p004] 82 swing back to Gaitskell which was responsible for his victory at the Blackpool 1961 conference. The Left had betrayed the fight for the Scar- borough anti-H-bomb policy. Irrespective of all the talk in Tribune about opposition to all H-bombs and H-bomb tests, the fact remains that together with its Parliamentary supporters, it could not face Gaitskell in the struggle for power inside the Labour Party. From that day it became only a question of time before they joined in open support of him as leader of the Party. Brighton exposes the fake Lefts The issue which finally brought Gaitskell, Michael Foot ard all the others together was the controversy around the European Common Market. The re- markable thing about this argument is that it has nothing to do with socialism. Because of the growth of world capitalist monopoly, British imperialism is being forced to abandon its Commonwealth pre- ferences and orientate itself towards the markets of Western Europe. Under pressure from Wall Street it has little or no choice but to join the Common Market. For the past year a fake discussion has been going on as to whether or not Britain should join, which completely ignores the behind the scenes role of monopoly capitalism. The Labour movement has been divided not on the socialist principle of nationalizing the monopolies, but upon the best steps to be taken to preserve the rule of the monopolies, and their interests. The only difference between Gaitskell and Macmillan is the question of terms for entry. Gaitskell alleges that the British capitalists, headed by Macmillan, are planning to give away some of their business: interests all too cheaply. He is deeply concerned that the British monopolists will not get a fair crack of the whip, so he loudly criticises the Tories and in doing so has had no difficulty in whipping behind him the support of the fake Lefts, who only two short years ago appeared to be at the point of splitting from him. Mr. Sidney Silverman announced at the public meeting of CND that Mr. Gaitskell had joined himself and others in the campaign against the Common Market. Mr. Stuart Hall, another prominent supporter of CND, hailed the Gaitskell decision as a victory for the Left wing. So the circle was complete. The ‘intransigent’ Left now joined the intransigent leader on the Right in an issue which has nothing to do with socialism, but concerns solely the future of British capitalism. Thus in the space of two years, Tribune and the fake Lefts have been thoroughly discredited and cannot under any circumstances be considered as LABOUR REVIEW—Autumn 1962 candidates for leadership in Labour’s Left wing. The capitalist press makes great play of the dis- gruntlement in the ranks of the Right-wing leaders of trade unions such as Carron of the AEU and Cooper of the NUGMW. This is camouflage. Mr. Gaitskell knew what he was doing when he made a bid for support from the Lefts. . His full-time election agency service employs approximately 200 people all over the country. Many constituency parties are bankrupt. The unions have suffered heavy financial losses because of rising costs. He needs Tribune and Frank Cousins to rally the support of the loyal left-wing election campaigners in the constituencies. Gaitskell can stand a few criticisms from Carron and Cooper. If Labour under his leadership can win the next election, then he will promptly open negotiations for entry into the Common Market because he had no difference on the question of entry in principle. He will then enjoy, once more the support of the extreme Right. New difficulties for the Right wing The Brighton conference should have been a complete victory for Gaitskell. Such an experience is not unusual in Labour Party history. At least two years before a general election, the Party unites its tanks behind the Right wing. At the 1957 Brighton conference, Aneurin Bevan joined hands with Gaitskell in preparation for the 1959 general election. Yet though unity was achieved at Brighton, it was by no means as complete as that which has been gained by the Right wing on previous occasions. Ever since Scarborough, the full-time officials of the Labour Party have been in some difficulties. Supporters of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarma- ment have been most active in the organization of functions which have brought them into open con- flict with the Right-wing organizers. This came to a head with the Moscow Peace Conference when it was decided to make a bid to expel several prominent pacifist members of the Labour Party who are also supporters of CND. The greatest difficulty, however, was encountered in the youth movement. By an overwhelming majority the first conference of the newly recon- stituted Young Socialists meeting in 1961 adopted resolutions calling upon Gaitskell to resign and re- affirming the Scarborough conference decisions. From the beginning the agents’ department was absolutely opposed to the resurgence of the Young Socialists. Over the past 18 months practically no activity of any kind has been carried out except the organization of a constant witch-hunt against the youth. When one considers the weight of attention given by the full-time officials to the youth, it is remarkable that any youth movement exists at all

[p005] EDITORIAL in the Labour Party. The ‘guilt by association’ amendment was badly needed to deal a blow that would finish off this militant movement and the influence of CND. Yet at Brighton something went wrong and the Right wing suffered their most serious defeat since Scarborough. Next business was moved and carried and the proposed amendment to the constitution fell. Thus at a time when it appeared that all the cards were stacked on Gaitskell’s side, his bureaucracy suffered a severe blow in a way that enables a new leadership of the Left to emerge in the coming period. The attack on ‘ Keep Left’ This is the real reason for the ferocious attack on the youth paper Keep Left. The paper was pro- scribed by the National Executive Committee in May of this year, after a prolonged witch-hunt against it in the constituency parties. The circumstances of its proscription reveal matters which may at some time in the future have to be examined in a court of law. Everyone from the fake Lefts of Tribune to the Right wing were unanimous in the demand to proscribe the paper. They fear more than anything else that the young people supporting the paper will become a fighting alternative leadership for the next stage in the resurgence of the Left in the Labour Party and the trade unions. Tribune’s denunciation of Keep Left on the Thursday morning when the matter was to be debated by conference, showed a spleen and venom that is by no means accidental. If Keep Left main- tains its publication then it must win more and more readers from Tribune. Fresh forces who will join the Labour Party in the coming election will be quite different in outlook from those who have joined it in the past. This is a period of capitalist crisis where the growth of unemployment is already having con- siderable effects on the thinking of many constituency parties which formerly supported the extreme Right. In denouncing Keep Left on the day that its pro- scription was to be debated, Tribune was simply throwing in its lot with Gaitskell, revealing that it 83 is frightened about its future as a paper. Tribune is no longer the paper which fights for democratic rights and freedom inside the Labour Party.. It is a witch-hunting sheet devoted to covering up the filthiest betrayals of the Scarborough anti-H-bomb decisions and the attack of the Right wing on the Young Socialists. Small wonder the extreme CDS youth paper Counterblast applauded Tribune’s attack on the ‘ Trotskyists’. It was the Brighton conference which gave Keep ‘Left and those who supported it their greatest victory. The conspiracy to proscribe the paper was fully revealed to the delegates. So much so that the organizers of the conference could not afford a public debate. When the appeal against the pro- scription was due to be heard, a deliberate policy of filibustering during the private session prevented the matter from being raised. A few minutes before 5.0 p.m. and the close of the session, anxious delegates demanded that the issue of Keep Left be now debated. This was refused on the grounds of shortage of time and a motion was presented that pages 9-21 of the NEC annual report (which included the item of Keep Left) should be accepted. Thus Keep Left was denied its constitutional right of appeal to the annual conference of the Labour Party. Having been defeated in their attempt to get their ‘guilt by association’ amendment adopted, the right- wing leadership had now to run away from a debate on Keep Left. We are now at the beginning of a new stage. in the development of Labour’s Left wing. The attack on the Young Socialists spearheads this development. But Labour is still an ageing party. There are not sufficient young people coming forward to take over the jobs. The militant Young Socialists, therefore, have time on their side. The campaign to lift the proscription on Keep Left, the campaign for militant socialist policies in the youth sections and adult Labour Party, are the central tasks which have now to be undertaken. Brighton was not a complete victory for the Right wing. It heralded the eclipse of the fake Lefts, but it may well have opened the door for the emergence of a real socialist Left wing in the months and years ahead

[p006] 84 LABOUR REVIEW—Autumn 1962