Who are the real splitters?

THE CASE OF MR ERIC HEFFER One progress of a radica THE Communist Party did Socie nd ma wanted, split the magnificent the working-class movement.

This is not a matter for tittering by Opposition members. I happen to know what he did in the difficult situation of the 1960 dispute. I am confident that he, and everyone else who has influence in the shipping and port areas, will do their utmost to see that no one was allowed to cash in, in a political sense, on the difficulties which have arisen. (Our emphasis, editor.)

Heffer, having made plain that he is not opposing the taking of Emergency Powers, only suggesting they be put to good use, is gently but firmly told by the exBevanite Wilson just what his duty to the capitalist state is, and how valuable he is in carrying it out.

WHAT WAS ROLE?

Above all he is commended to both sides of the House as a man eminently capable of helping out against all those who are fighting to build an alternative political leadership.

As Wilson told the House, Mr. Heffer already proved himself in their respect in the unofficial seamen's strike of 1960. We would like to ask both Wilson and Heffer, just what was this special role in 1960?

Heffer's own development as a 'left' has often been commented on in this paper, but Tuesday's parliamentary ceedings shed an even crueller light on it than before.

Way back in the middle 1950s, Heffer condemned as opportunists all those who as Marxists saw the importance of work inside the Labour Party and in parliament. insisted that only the organisation of the industrial workers themselves could lead to the victory of socialism.

Continued page 4, column everything it possibly could to weaken and monstration and lobby of parliament on and an eye-opener for thousands of Young on the reactionary role of Stalinism inside Spearheading the Stalinist splitters was Mr. Jack Dash on the Royal Group of docks. On Tuesday, the day before the lobby, he denounced his fellow dockers in the northern ports as irresponsible 'trouble makers' because they had taken a decision for a one-day strike to join the lobby.

For this he earned warm praise from the Tory press. The 'Evening Standard' on the same day devoted an editorial commending him.

'Mr. Jack Dash, who has not previously been renowned for his restraint, is to be congratulated on his plea for moderation. He warned the dockers that trouble-makers are trying to provoke the more militant element into hasty action.

Obviously he shares the Prime Minister's fears that political factions may try to spread the stoppage!

The Tories support Mr. Dash because he is playing the role of splitter. Dockers on the Royal Group should take careful note of what the Tory Press has to say because neither Dash nor the Communist Party are going to fight the Devlin report.

They will settle for a few minor amendments.

This is the reason why they hate the northern dockers who are going to light this report. The sooner the London Liaison Committee gets rid of Dash the better.

He supports the T&GWU officials who, with the agreement of the right wing of the National Union of Seamen, are now moving ships in the Royal Group in London. In other words these cowardly officials are breaking the strike.

"The Guardian' of May 26 says:

theN... is cooper in thin this work... Yet, inevitably, there are elements in the unions who are profoundly unhappy about having "only half a strike"!

The Communist Party and Dash are tied to Wilson. They use left phrases in order to cover this up but the cover is wearing thin.

Their actions in joining hands with the Tories and right-wing Labour leaders in opposing the May 25 lobby reveals them in the true colours of Stalinism-splitters and disrupters of the labour movement.

STATEMENTIOF THEI INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL • QUESTION: The Labour government, in its and Incomes Bill claims that it is to control both and prices. If this is so, and it brings stable shouldn't the working class support the Bill? Prices wages prices, ay 28,