The meaning of Labour's conference: interview with Tony Benn
Socialist Action1980sPhil HearseScanned print read by OCR, and not yet proofread: expect run-together words, dropped letters and, where a piece began partway down a page, a few lines of its neighbour. The printed page is the authority.
Interview with Tony Benn At this conference, on many of the votes, the union block vote seems to have been further away from the constituency delegates' vote than for some time. Did you detect this and what do you think it represents?
I don't know if that's so, but I'm in favour of all conference votes being recorded because I think that conference will never be really effective until at trade union conferences people can along and say 'why did the union vote for this, and why didn't we vote for that'. This year we are recording votes for NEC elections which will be highly significant.
I think there is a genuine desire for unity in the Party as a whole. I think that some of the trade unions possibly feel by voting for certain policies they may be contributing to unity, they desperately want to see the Thatcher government out. And if there is a shift from the past, then I think that is possibly the explanation.
The vote for Eric Heffer, just over six per cent of the electoral college, obviously reflected the fact that the left was split in the leadership election and was probably a disappointment to many people on the left. Do you not think that the left should have backed him in the leadership fight earlier and more vigorously in the way that it backed Michael Meacher for the deputy leadership!
Well I think probably, but not being in parliament I was not involved in any of the stages of nominating. But as far as I was concerned when he invited me to go and, speak for him on his plattorm . went.
The election did provide in Eric Heffer's candidature a genuine choice tor people and some constituencies took it — and I think that it's very important elechoos should around political choices and not just about individuals. So I think that it was an important candidature.
Whether his vote could have improved if other actions had been taken I can't really say, because wasn't directly involved in the planning of his campaign.
If you had a vote as an MP, you would have voted for Eric Heffer? Rather than Neil Kinnock? Certainly. I made that absolutely clear, 1 did vote for him. but I voted for him as a delegate for Kensington, but a vote I thought was correct. Did you think that it was surprising that Michael Meacher voted for Neil Kinnock?
Well I'm not going to comment on what other people did.
In the speech you made to conference you referred to the Labour Party programme as a 'minimum programme . hme document which has presented to the conference, paigning for a Fairer Britain seems like a minimum version of a minimum programme....
No I don't see it like that at all. The campaigning document says that we re-affirm the policies which we put forward to the electorate, so it actually confirms the manifesto.
But of course the position is wholly different. The manifesto is drawn from Labour's Programme for Britain 1982, and therefore what we've actually got now with the Manifesto replaced by a defeat, is that back to Labour's Programme 1982. The little campaign document we produced this time is only just because we thought it right to say something to the Partv at this year's conterence. But it doesn't in any way erode or shift the Labour Programme 1982 But don't you think that the way the document is written and the which it gives to policy is indicative that some people want to policy, for example in the way opposition to the EEC is replaced with a section entitled 'a socialist Europe'? come Well we've never doubted that. I've always been in favour of a socialist voice in Europe, my objection to the Treaty of Rome is that it silencies a socialist voice in Europe.
I think you're nit-picking, which is understandable given the position vol take. instead of looking at the real thing. What's happened this week is overwhelming re-affirmation of our basic position.
Now we haven't actually had a debate on the EEC because our first job now is to fight the European elecnons, in order to see lal lne Labou vote and the Labour campaign on the on unemployment about non-nuclear it's about the whole range of policy and that is our priority.
But the Treaty of Rome is a major obstacle to the united Europe I want, a united socialist governing states.
And nothing that's been said or done can alter that; but of course there are people who were always proCommon Market and in the aftermath of an election everyone should be able to speak their minds. Sure, but it's not just on the Common Market but on other things. There are aspects of poicy about yesterday, policy on jobs, which should be in the forefront of the programme -pear.... been CamTony Benn But there was a resolution which was passed this week which re-affirms that...
...and again on unilateral disarmament, although this conference rewe're affirmed it, the change VULC and is ucicue sualegy, Europe of selfmost minimum version of it.
which you talked defence strategy, for example party the 35-hour week, strategy'. the negotiations.
document has the which sualegy A FAIRER, BETTER BRITAIN lege, the that IDDI Ine Well you have confidence that it will be put right. But don't you recognise that there is a fear in some sections of the party that these expulsions are not aberration, to something more extensive? There will be those who favour it. I don't think it will happen.
What's your general view of the attitude that socialists inside the party, should take to the leadership? It's a leadership elected by a system we campaigned very hard to create. The Rank and File Mobilising Committee fought very hard to get an electoral college. We got the electoral col we used it, we got a leadership and I think the party should accept that in the same way as it accepts the vote of the conference on political matters.
This year's conference has built confidence, I think we've confirmed policies, we've used the machinery which is now beyond argument — nobody's ever going to sug gest now that we change the electoral college - and I think that all the work , WCIL in which was very necessary over the last four years, ha produced results which are in confor mity with the wishes of the Labour Party as reflected at the conference.
If we hadn't done all these things we might very well be faced with David Owen just about to be elected to the leadership of the Labour Party defectors, world have shifted to wards the SP Indeed the SDP as such might not have appeared.
So I think it's a very considerable
Polaris.
I don't think so. It says a non-nuclear I know nuclear free Europe and an end to foreign bases.
But it doesn't say get rid of Polaris. underestimate. It does, it says 'a non-nuclear defence _renecl a half an hour.
VIeW of Militant? sion?
been will all change.
It says that we should put Polaris into Well in opposition you urge what the government should do. We're not the government, and what we've said is that we favour a non-nuclear defence the end of right. lucalls what you think, that there's a betrayal here, let's warn people about a betrayal there — but you The really important thing that's happened here this week is the re-affirmation of our position. And whatever mav be in the campaigr document, it was written by the office general desire to put something before conference.
It isn't a major document, it's never been through the Home Policy committee and went only once to the National Executive and was dealt with in But it neither replaces nor amends Labour's programmme. Even the old executive, which was very right wing, voted against asking the TGWU to remit their unilateralist resolution. So come on, get out of your gloom.
It's not a question of being gloomy it's question of trying to see what the trend of direction is What is your of the conterence decision confirm the expulsion of the editors I think that's a mistake. I've been opposed to it from the beginning.
Does it not disappoint you that the new leadershin which the conference and the party is being asked to unify around explicitly support this expulWell the views of individuals have known from une beginning. think it's a mistake, and in the end it things I was there when Michael Foot was expelled from the PLP and when Nye Bevan was expelled from the PLP, when my predecessor as Bristol MP Stafford Cripps was expelled from the Party — in the end these things are put achievement. and i think it wouid o foolish of people who were engaged in • campaigns for the democratic changes and for the policy changes, as soon as they've occured, to go around nit-picking and say it's all a disaster, it's all a failure, we're all going to be expelled. I fear it's the pessimistic line that Socialist Action takes. I don't know why you do it.
Well we do it because we think that there are people in the Party, in the leadership of the Party, who have seen over the past few years & stron! trend to the left with which you abov all people have been associated, and who want to stop, and say it's gond too far.
And the fact that in the present leadership, among others, were people who refused to vote for you in the deputy leadership campaign, who signified they were doing this as part of trying to stop the left. And we fear they may be starting this process of moving to the right.
But there's been a right and a left of the Party for years. But if you really want to know where the Party is now.
compare the ovation given to Michael Foot at the end of his speech, when it was in some ways the old Michael Foot, and the reception given to Jim Callaghan. After three years ago he was at this conference as leader of the party.
And if you can't look at that and see what's happened to the Labour Party, you're missing a very impor tant thing. Of course there are people who wish it had never happened and would like to push it back. The fact is that they are a minority now, and the reforms made DONC organisation well established. Don't be surprised if you discove people in the Party who want to push back. I ne difference is that once they were in a majority and now they are in a minority, I think a perInterview by Phil Hearse
Socialist Action* 14 October 1989