THE QUEEN'S SPEECH - Tory Press Support Labour's policy, BUT WILSON EVADES THE ISSUE Gunter attempting to

For a 1965 General Election

Thumbs up

for Callaghar in the City THE Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. James Callaghan, drove to the Mansion House atter the Queen's speech for a Lord Mayor's dinner. Present at this junket were all the leading bankers, and businessmen from the City of London-in a word, the most powerful capitalists in the land.

After the dinner was over and these well-fed gentlemen rested the lower portion of their bellies on the banquetting tables, Callaghan had the following syrupy words to say to them:

'Let me make it quite clear that we recognise yoUr contribution to the national economy, and we recognise that you need to earn your living.

It is not our job to make it more difficult for you to do so.

But you 1n your turn will recognise that your interests must be harmonised with the needs of the nation as a whole.

If you have criticisms to make of our actions, come and tell us! Watchell Isten to Won you have to say with an ope.

mind and see if we can meet your difficulties. If we cannot do this it will not be because of prejudice against you.

I have no doubt tha in the City ot londor and in the world ot business which it is a part we shall and many allles in our oblective modern and ye lnvite your co-operation 1n fairer, a more productive and a more progressive sociely.

There is nothing substantiaily diHerent what Callaghan saidfrom his Tory predecessor would have said, except that Callaghan talking or the eve of a budge speech which he will make next Tuesday.

City are reconciled to the that order to tie working o own to loudles.

agreements in eginning to make Thev look upon Mr. Callaghan. not as a socialist who challenges their position or power but as an accomplice wno is nelping them to continue to own the means or proaucuon ana the working class as tnel latners and Hithough Mr. formally a member of the Labour Party he is regarded as one of their servants doing a useful job of work. He is, in fact, advising them as to how they must behave if they are to make their industries more productive at the expense of the wages and conditions of the working class, because may well be that Callaghan will have something unpleasant in store for the labour movement which he will reveal when he delivers his budget speech, next Tuesday.

Callaghan thinks the Britain he lives in is a country without classes. ( Britain for the Marxists and Socialists is a country with two classes.' Callaghan believes that capitalism has a future. The Marxists believe that capitalism has no future and are therefore in favour of the working class taking power out of the hands of the capitalists.

The Callaghan road is, in fact, the road of Ramsay McDonald and all those traitors who sold out whatever principles they had to the political agencies of the City of London. We are pretty certain that the activities of Callaghan and his friends in the coming months will prove uS right. B Wilson's outburst during the debate on the EFORE some fake left chokes himself cheering Queen's speech, just think soberly about what it all means.

The 'Daily Worker' of Wednesday, November 4, says:

"There will be general welcome for Mr. Wilson's refusal to ibe intimidated by Tory bluster into abandoning progressive measures in his Government's programme.' Is this really all that is involved?

"The Times', , also of Wednesday, November 4, describes the Queen's speech as a 'useful programme, which with one provocative exception, establishes a sensible order of priorities'. The die-hard Tory "Telegraph' describes the proposals and says that 'higher pensions and other social security benefits are certainly desirable and undeniably popular.

Here we have the unusual spectacle of an agreement on Wilson's speech, ranging from the 'Daily Worker' to the big businessman's paper, "The Times', and the Tory 'Daily Telegraph'.

Changed tune

Even on steel nationalization there are unmistakeable signs that the Tories and the City of London are changing their tune.

The 'Daily Telegraph', again of November 4 had this to say about steel and the crown lands commission:

'As a piece of parliamentary strategy the decision to go all out for steel nationalization straight away probably makes sense. Mr. Wilson's chances of passing this pointless measure now are as great as they are ever likely to be. The hope must be that he will at least make a clean job of it simply by issuing iron and steel stock to shareholders and that he will not involve the industry in a long nightmare of Socialist reconstruction. The same considerations apply to the equally controversial Crown Lands Commission. Wise men are on record as saying that the Commission is bound to reduce the supply of new building land.

If Labour insists on setting it up just the same then perhaps it is as well that it should be done sooner rather than later.' Agreement It remains for the 'Financial Times' to supply the clue to the apparent agreement between right and left over Wilson's programme.

"There is a sense, indeed. in which Mr. Wilson can justly claim that his position is strong. Neither opposition party is anxious for an early General Election, the Conservatives, until they have settled their leadership problem, the Liberals, until they have rebuilt their reserves.' It is precisely for these reasons that it would be a great mistake to shout too soon over Wilson's attack on the Tory victor at Smethwick. This may only serve • to draw people's attention away from the real issues. At best, apart from steel nationalization, Labour's programme of reforms are very small in comparison to the tasks facing the British working-class movement.

Nobody will disagree with the Prime Minister when he describes the Tory MP of Smethwick as a "political leper. Unfortunately, the numbers of such lepers are on the increase and the stark fact has to be faced that it is right-wing Labour's support for the Immigration Bill that is substantially responsible for this.

The notorious Gordon Walker, whose inhuman handling of the Seretse Khama affair is still remembered by the labour movement, was not an ideal candidate to fight the Tory in Smethwick.

No cure Racialism cannot be cured by parliamentary legislation making it illegal. In the main it effects the poor white population who live in slums and overcrowded conditions into which pour thousands of poor immigrants. Bad housing goes hand in glove with racialist propaganda.

But how can Wilson cure the housing problem when there is an admitted shortage of bricks due to the domination of the industry by the great monopolies. Without nationalization of the building and supply industries there is no effective answer to the racialists.

The pledge in the Queen's speech to restore rent controls contained no reference to the restorauoà of security of tenure which is, of course, extremely vital for poor, working-class tenants, both coloured and white.

In their election Manifesto, the Labour Party declared that nowhere is planning more Cont. p. 4; col. 7 We could support Labour' says Grimond nationalization and a few reservations on the Rent Act, the Liberal Party finds no points of disagreement with Wilson's programme. Jo Grimond made this clear when addressing_the Liberal Council last Sunday.

There appears to be an area in which we should find it possible to give our support,' he said. In this 'connection I might mention legal reform, the social services and-if the Labour Party will tackle it— the whole question of industrial relations and restrictive practices.' Frank Byers, chairman of the Liberal Party's election committee, told the meeting: I believe we are on the threshhold of a major political Will Devlin enquiry propose 'decasualisation'? Devlin enquiry THE announcement by the Ministery nabe, dockerunter, setting up a committee of enquiry into the dockers' pay dispute under the chairmanship of Lord Devlin should be an ominous warning to all dockers that more is at stake than the simple issue of wages.

The enquiry is not simply advance in which the forces of progress will re-group in the interests of the nation.' Grimond was guarded in his reference to the proposals for a Lib-Lab pact, put forward by Labour MPs. Woodrow Wyatt and Desmond Donnelly. He is obviously watching to see which way the wind blows this particular kite. his impertinent anti-socialist intervention in the labour movement, should be firmly stepped on by trades unionists and Labour Party members. Otherwise, this effort to drag the movement still further to the right will be supported by other sections of the Labour leadership, especially in the event of a crisis breaking out in top layers of the Labour Party. smokescreen behind which the Transport and General Workers' Union leaders and the Labour government intend to betray the dockers' wage struggle.

The Labour government, faced as they are by a serious economic crisis, are desperately trying Gunter: must be warned his plans will be opposed to avoid a dock strike. The enquiry will give them, they hope, a breathing space.

But the port employers have never treated the wage claim as something separate from their plans for reorganising the whole docks industry. At every stage of negotiation they have tried to bargain an increase of wages for changes in the working of the Dock Labour Scheme.

DETERMINED

It is now quite clear that the port employers are determined to press forward with their plans for the 'decasualisatien' of the industry. This is what is behind the appointment of Lord Devlin.

It was the same Lord Devlin who headed a committee of enquiry into the workings of the dock workers (Regulation of Employment Scheme) in 1955 under the instructions of the then Tory Minister of Labour, Sir Walter Monckton.

In the report published in 1956, Lord Devlin came out strongly in favour of the need to decasualise the industry. His opposition to the employers' proposals to abolish dual control by placing the management of the Boards solely in the hands of the employers has today a significant ring.

ALARM

Many of his recommendations were the cause of serious opposition by dockers in late 1959, when attempts were made to implement them.

Looked at in today's circumstances, his statements will be viewed by all dockers with alarm.

During the past three years the trade unions under the lead of Frank Cousins have come out openly in favour of decasualisation and the reorganisation of the industry.

So-called 'decasualisation' schemes have be drawn up in the ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol and Glasgow with the complete co-operation of the TGWU leaders. Only the vigilance of dockers in these ports have halted their implementation.

At the heart of these schemes the main proposals have been to increase efficiSpecial report from Beg Perry ency on the docks, by achieving mobility of labour, flexi.

bility in manning scales, increased mechanisation with no resistance to redundancy, the working of night shifts and the abolition of overtime payments.

The reorganisation of the docks industry along these lines has now become a priority not only for the port employers but also, and more particularly, for the British capitalist class. With the intensified competition for world markets, the reduction of transportation costs and the speedier turn round of ships can be achieved only at the expense of the dock worker.

U.S. EXAMPLE

Dockers in British ports well know what happened in the ports on the west coas! of America through similar reorganisation schemes.

An agreement reached between Harry Bridges for the West Coast Longshoremen and the employers bartered increased wages in exchange for accepting mechanisation, mobility labour and a reduction in manning scales.

Within 12 months the labour force had been reduced from 24,000 to 12,000 and the average working week during 1962 was 17 hours per docker. The remainder of the labour force were thrown on the dole.

This is what lies behind the Devlin committee of enquiry.

It is an open secret that the committee of enquiry will be studying a document from the employers running into 32 pages with detailed proposals for the reorganisation of the docks scheme. These vary very liftle from the terms of the 'new deal' which were rejected by Merseyside dockers last March, and in London in 1962.

CENTRE OF STRUGGLE At the same time indications are that the employers are prepared to improve the offer on wages providing the unions can promise co-operation enforcing these plans through against the opposition of the dockers. They are now more confident that the Labour government will give them the assistance they require.

It is essential that dockers are not distracted now into believing that the 'new deal' is off the agenda. The appointment of Devlin, ably assisted by Mr. S. G. Ford, who assisted Robens in the closure of pits, with the resultant sacking of some 100,000 miners, has placed the fight against the employers 'decasualisation' schemes back into the centre of the struggle on the docks.

Dockers must warn Gunter and the TGWU leaders that any such plans will be opposed. Decasualisation must be fought as a national issue, uniting all ports. Above all the demand must be pressed for the nationalization of the port transport industry.

Only under nationalization can security for dockers be won.