Preparing for Government

London Labour Briefing no. 50, June 1985, p. 17

Transcribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.

By-line as printed: Phil Hearse (Hampstead and Highgate CLP).

No one can seriously doubt that the outcome of the miners' strike was a substantial victory for the capitalist class. But it was not an unqualified victory for the Tories — indeed they are running into major political problems. Public opinion is running strongly against Thatcher. Even more telling than Labour's opinion poll lead are recent surveys showing a clear majority of trade unionists now supporting Labour, and the indications that there will be a positive outcome to the political levy ballot in many unions.

Even ruling class opinion shows a trend away from Thatcher — for the simple reason that despite the miners' strike, despite the attacks on the welfare state, despite rate capping, despite everything, the economy show no signs of any sustained recovery. The demoralisation of many Tory MPs, and a political atmosphere in which David Steel gets only approval when he talks about 'increasingly strange orders coming from Thatcher's bunker', are indicators that the mood is changing.

Of course, none of this automatically means that the Tories will lose the general election which is likely in 1987. But it is an encouraging confirmation of what many of us have always believed, despite the doom and gloom of the defeatists who want to abandon class politics, that a Labour victory at the next general election is possible. There is still everything to play for.

POLITICAL OFFENSIVE

The left of the party has however been rightly totally immersed in the defensive battles against the Tories, not least the miners' strike, which it was our elementary duty to wage. Little attention, however, has been paid to going on the political offensive, to preparing for the next Labour government.

The right of the party has not made this ommission. Roy Hattersley has spearheaded the ideological offensive against nationalisation, and in his 22nd April speech to the AUEW conference boldly outlined his conception of a new 'compact' between the party and the unions — wage restraint in exchange for jobs.

Those readers politically active during the last Labour government, and who went through the Grunwick and firefighters battles, and the 'winter of discontent', will have a rough idea of what Hattersley means — wage restraint in return for cuts and more unemployment.

The coming general election will increasingly concentrate the minds of party and union activists. All the pressure will be to 'unite' behind the leadership and its policies. It would be a disaster to bend to this pressure. For the experience of the Mitterand government in France shows that a right wing social democratic government at a time of acute economic and social crisis creates the basis for widespread working class apathy and demoralisation and the growth of the far right. The interview with Ken Livingstone in the latest issue of Marxism Today, the attack on Benn and the 'hard left' in New Socialist and the role being played on the NEC by the likes of Blunkett and Sawyer, show that the 'soft left' is producing its own band of 'new realists'. Their implicit strategy is to quiten things down and create 'left unity' with Kinnock in preparation for the election. But it is all based on an illusion — that a Kinnock-Hattersley government would in some sense be a 'left' government. It would be utterly foolish to forget the lessons of the Labour governments of the 1960s and 1970s.

Unless the left of the party begins to go on the political offensive again we shall become increasingly the victims of the drift towards Kinnockism. In my view Briefing supporters need to set themselves the objective of initiating a debate around central policy objectives to be implemented by a Labour government — objectives which break with the capitalist logic of Kinnockism.

This debate should aim at drawing up a series of proposals to take to both union and Labour conferences, with the aim of building up the maximum support by 1986. Taken together, these proposals should constitute the main planks of a socialist Labour government.

Such a project is far from being a simple propaganda exercise. We urgently need to resume the offensive and give a political, governmental, perspective to all those forces which have battled through in the fight against Thatcher.

To initiate the debate I want to propose the following measures, and explain why they are the key for a Labour government which breaks with capitalism.

First, the next Labour government must break with NATO. It may seem paradoxical to start with an international issue, but this is a vital issue which will affect everything about such a government's basic political opinions. Tony Benn and Eric Heffer have done the movement a real service by forcefully raising this issue, despite the predictable rebuff from the NEC majority.

Any Labour government which wanted to pursue a socialist foreign policy, and break with Thatcher's utter subordination to the policy objectives of the United States, would have to break with imperialism's main military alliance — NATO. Moreover, there could never be any real unilateral nuclear disarmament without evicting the hundred-plus United States military bases from this country, along with Cruise and the rest.

The question of NATO is a touchstone. It sorts out the real unilateralists from the fakers. In the socialist movement it sorts out those who want to break from imperialism and those who don't.

NATIONALISATION

Second, a Labour government which wanted to make any serious moves towards socialism would have to be pledged to renationalise all those industries de-nationalised by the Tories — and extend nationalisation to the banks, the financial institutions and the main monopolies.

I recently heard a well known supporter of a Trotskyist newspaper describe nationalisation as 'the boring old economic strategy'. In his own way this comrade was echoing the line of Hattersley and the rest — that nationalisation is 'old fashioned', bureaucratic, irrelevant to peoples needs and so forth.

But to fight for the nationalisation of the banks and the monopolies under workers control is the very opposite of creating 250 National Coal Boards. Without the power to control investment, without control over the vast financial resources of the banks and monopolies, any socialist reconstruction of the economy is a pipe dream. At best it would be a Keynesian reflation which would soon collapse under an assault from the IMF and the City institutions.

DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

Third, there is now an urgent need to throw back the poisonous encroachment on democratic liberties, which started under the last Labour government and has dramatically deepended under the Tories. The left should propose a charter of democratic rights, to be implemented as a bill by the next Labour government, aimed at throwing off the shackles placed on the labour movement and all the threats to democratic liberties which Thatcherism stands for.

Such a bill of democratic rights would have to include: the disbandment of the political police — the Special Branch and MI5 — and the disbandment of the Special Patrol Groups. It should also aim at disarming the police. Full trade union rights must be restored, including the right to picket, to strike, and to conduct union activities free from the law. The bill should also include the right of free assembly and demonstration.

IRELAND

Fourth, the next Labour government must withdraw British troops from Ireland, abolish Diplock courts, repeal the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and enter into dialogue with the representatives of the nationalist community in the Six Counties — Sinn Fein.

Fifth, a Labour government with any claims to socialism would have to commit itself to a massive extension of social and democratic rights for all sectors of the oppressed — for women, black people, lesbians and gays.

As the general election approaches, you can bet a pound to a penny that despite all the promises to the contrary, the pressure for some kind of deal with the SDP or the Liberals will begin to reassert itself. Here and now the left has to hammer away at the theme of 'no coalitionism' — for a Labour government.

Whatever the outcome of the next general election the organisation and political clarity of the party's left will be vital. But all the gains since 1979 can be squandered, with the left retreating into demoralisaton or capitulation to Kinnocksim, unless we can unite around a clear alternative socialist platform.

What we have proposed here is just the beginnings of such a platform — much more work needs to be done.

But without clear political goals and much more serious organisation the kind of politics represented by Briefing will be chopped to pieces in the party in the next two years.

transcribed from the page image, 4 Nov 2026 (Hearse/Lloyd follow-up); spelling as printed (economy show; ommission; Mitterand; quiten; peoples needs; deepended; demoralisaton; Kinnocksim). Front page of Briefing National Supplement no. 18, June 1985; headline printed in capitals on p. 17 ('PREPARING FOR GOVERNMENT') and as 'Preparing For Government' over the continuation; by-line 'Phil Hearse (Hampstead and Highgate CLP)' under the headline. The bold standfirst paragraph is given first in bold. The piece jumps ('(CONTINUED)'; 'Continued from previous page') to the boxed lower part of p. 18 (Supplement page 2) and ends there; it does not run onto p. 19, which carries the continuation of Chris Knight and Graham Bash, 'Briefing and "left realignment"'. Left out: the masthead, the photo of Kinnock and Hattersley and its caption and credit, the jump lines, the 'LABOUR — TAKE THE POWER!' footer slogan, and the Knight/Bash article at the top of p. 18. A stray mark before 'old' in 'the boring old economic strategy' is not reproduced. Fully legible.