[page 18]
A MINORITY LABOUR GOVERNMENT An energy crisis, a miners' strike, a 3-day week, a snap general election and is amazing to think of the speed of events in Britain in the last few months. But it may be slow compared to the The whole process leading to the return of a Labour government must be seen in light of the crippling economic crisis that has descended not only on Britain but on the world in general. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has predicted a fall in the rate of growth for all its 24 member countries in 1974, compared to the previous year. On average Gross National Product will only increase by 2% compared to 6.3% in 1973. Inflation in the OECD area is averaging 13% in 1973 - with 29% in Japan and 12% in France; even West Germany had 7½%. The oil crisis created by the Mid-East war has still to leave its full effect, but without doubt 'stagflation' ie. inflation of prices at the same time as low growth and rising unemployment, is now dominant throughout Western In such an inclement world economic climate, it is not surprising that the economic experts fear the worst for the 523222 already enfeebled British economy. The London Graduate School of Business thought that 1974 was "likely to be fall in housebuilding and a non-oil balance of payments deficit of £2000m. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research was even gloomier, talking of 18% inflation, 1m unemployed and 5½% fall in Gross Domestic Prod- As the Financial Times put it on New Year's Eve, 1973: "For Britain the choice lies between a trivial rate of growth and a substantial decline in outpui." The balance of payments deficit will require horrendous repayments and borrowing requirements. Denis Healey, in Labour's March budget, estimated that the deficit would be 4.5% of Gross Domestic Product or three times the proportionate figure that James Callaghan had to deal with under Labour in 1964. Money supply continues to fuel inflation at 28% a year and thus the Financial Times prophetically concluded: "virtually nothing can be done to stop inflation... it will not merely be material standards that are threatened but the whole fabric of freedom and decency (sic) which characterise our life in this country." There is now the BRITAIN:
pace to be set in the next few.
uct, with a 7% fall in real incomes.
AF BAF Trade unionists march in support of jailed building workers.
DULWICH LABOUR PARTY UNF SOCIALT LIMIE SAIIR TO & WER/OL ISLINGTO NALGE DIAL SERVIC BY BOB McKEE a minority Labour government - it 17
[page 19]
danger that capitalism will resort to surgery to remove the cancer in the economy that inflation represents, ie. "there What a contrast from the wild predictions of the Tory government in their Stage IIl White Paper, which had boasted of 3½% growth in 1974, to the statement of the Governor of the Bank of England in Jan.'74, who talked of austerity and stagnation of real incomes for ten years to right the economy. When only a few months before, Heath had talked of Britain's economic problems as 'the problems of success', now the Tory press called the Governor's speech a • When the OECD came out with a further prediction that Britain would suffer a staggering 9.5% drop in GNP for 1974, it was clear how big a dose it could be. The reckless inflationary expansion under the Tories had only reaped an 11% increase in real GNP since 1970, keeping Britain still at the bottom of the growth league. However, in the same period food prices had risen 50%! The net output in manufacturing had risen 21.2% between 1970-72, but home costs per unit output rose 20.6%, so the real increase in output was a miserly 1% (Census of Production figures). Peter Walker, Tory Minister for had risen a record 66% since 1970, but he omitted to mention that imports had risen 82% and that the export figure was the lowest in the EEC! No wonder the £ fell by 20% since December 1971 on exchange markets. 1973 was the year of the lowest number of house-building completions since 1949. Nearly half the income of the average wage-earner was needed to purchase a house at 1973 prices and 11% interest rates. In fact the Cambridge Economic Policy group estimated that the real incomes of the average wage-earner fell by 2% in the eighteen months upto Jan. 1974, ie. during the period of the so-called Tory boom. For those with below average wages, the situation was The class divisions within British society remained as unaltered as ever. When some reporters returned to Salford, Manchester, where Engels had described 'The condition of the English working-class in 1844', they found little or no change in 130 years! While upto one-fifth of the population depend on incomes at or below what is considered by the government as the poverty line; while at least 50,000 old people die every year of hypothermiaover 19,000 people in Britain have personal fortunes over £200,000. Inequality of income is created by inequality of wealth and power. Only 4% of income-earners have any shares and of those, only 1% own 81% of the shares. In 1970, 87% of all net capital assets in industry was owned by only 300 companies (Board of Trade figures) and Society remains in the grip of a rich few, who jealously perpetuate their privileges. According to General Household Survey, the 7% of fathers who earned more than £3,000 a year in 1972, account for 48% of children in independent schools or direct-grant. University graduates are eight times more likely to get £3,000 a year than the average. Public school products are four times more likely. While those earning £1,500 or less a year, account for 63% of secondary modern children and secondary modern boys are more likely on average to earn £1,500 or less in their lifetime. The Schools Council Inquiry into Young Schoolleavers found that manual workers' children of the same '0' level ability were twice as likely to leave school at 15 than children of professional workers. Even the mortality rate of unskilled workers was twice that of professional workers and they were three times as likely to suffer from chronic illness, but had less than average GP doctor coverage. There has been no change since the war in the percentage of working class children in universities or in the domination of public schoolboys in elite jobs. Yet this is not because the working class are more 'stupid', for working class students tend to get better degrees than 'middle class' students. No wonder that Social Trends, a government publication, concluded: "a sense of being deprived of their just rewards runs through all sections of British society, but is felt most deeply by the working class and poor." Class antagonism (what sociologists call 'relative deprivation') is bred by class divi- There is certainly no illusion on the part of the ruling class in British society, about the class nature of the society they control: "the British disease is class conflict. Our problems will not be solved until we are governed by men who understand this... in essence - this is the way Marx saw it - and to this limited extent his analysis has something to teach today" (FT 8.1.74). In fact, it is from this very premise that the strategy of the ruling class is based: for "the task is not to abolish class divisions but to minimise class conflict - or at the very least to But it is increasingly difficult for the ruling class to carry out that basic objective and their vacillation and weakness have been exposed by the events of the last few months alone. The severe economic position of British capitalism forces the ruling class to advocate austerity and cuts in living standards in order to raise the share of profits, ie. the unpaid labour of the working class, going to them. For only this will provide incentive for investment and stop the decline in the rate of profit, which is the lifeblood of capitalism. And yet how to do this without provoking an already restless and well-organised working class movement in Britain into revolutionary upheaval? In their boardrooms and private clubs, the representatives of the ruling class have wrestled with the problem. They have continually vacillated and split between two poles of strategy: confrontation - or concession The political strategists of capital in the Financial Times analysed the problem in detail (30.11.73) : "the trade unions will have to be drawn into the semi-political activity of managing the economy - particularly as regards wages and prices. The only alternative is to smash them, but since that is evidently beyond the political will of even a Conservative government and is probably impossible anyway without a revolution, it is hardly a serious option". But the alternative of conciliation and concession is fraught with danger, for the "task of deciding upon the size of the wages cake would he hard enough but far more difficult would be inducing "necessary dose of realism"
worse.
this was before the merger boom of 1971-2.
sion in capitalist society.
and conciliation.
18 is no quick way to eliminate inflation without a major slump." (FT).
Trade, kept telling us that exports protect ourselves from its worst effects" (FT).
[page 20]
the trade union leaders to take part in the invidious business of dividing ii up". Nevertheless, a decision must be made for the policy of confrontation or conciliation "means either breaking the power of the unions or trying far harder to harness it. Of these two, the second, though extremely difficult, is certainly more easy and desirable Thus the long term aim of capital was to conciliate to gain time, but time is running out for British capitalism, making judgement of tactics increasingly difficult. Heath and the Tories swung from confrontation politics after the 1970 election, to conciliation after their defeat by the miners in 1972, back to confrontation when they failed to 'harness' the trade union leaders to an incomes policy. They finally foundered with their statutory policy at the The policy of confrontation with the miners was a policy of desperation. The miners' overtime ban brought the three-day week. Ostensibly this was to save energy, but the real reason was exposed by the Sunday Times editorial at the time: "Nothing was done to diminish the extreme psychological schock to the public. This is clearly Mr Heath's chosen tool. Its desired effect, if not its primary purpose, is to get the miners and railmen to submit to an accumulation of pressure from fellow-workers faced with the dole". Tory ministers railed about the militants and extremists, who were throttling the country, eg. David Howell, the Energy minister: "the deeper crisis the country is facing has been caused by extremist groups who are hell-bent on overthrowing the familiar British way of life." solidarity was unwavering and the desperate gamble of the Tories was failing. They were going to have to settle with the miners. The problem was not to be seen to be defeated by the miners so that other workers would gain confidence to ask for wage demands beyond the Tories' stringent Stage Ill levels as had happened in 1972. The idea was to declare Stage III dead and set up Stage IV which would give the miners more under the Relativities Report of the Pay Board (which is what eventually happened under the Labour government) and apply a wage freeze to the rest of the working class. But so obvious would such a ruse be to the workers that they would be paying the price of appeasement to the miners that the Tory strategy needed "a more elaborate introduction" (FT)ie. a general election for a doctor's mandate. It was a "necessary prelude to Stage IV" (Sunday Times). The Tories were unsure whether to fight an election on a 'reds under the bed' scare or on 'a new deal for the people' platform. In the end it was a bit of both. As it was, Heath hesitated to take the election step because of the immense risk involved. For "a general election will not solve the industrial relations crisis in this country... it will produce the most bitterly divided Britain since the war - a society divided on class lines... it is hard to believe that Mr Heath really prefers that course to the admittedly difficult and perilous one of achieving a greater measure of national consensus... " (Guardian 18.12.73). In addition, the TUC pledge not to use the miners' dispute as a case in other wage negotiations, although an empty pledge as far as the economy was concerned, it did appear to put the Tory government in a bad light if they did not consider it. As evidence seemed to show that the miners' overtime ban was not biting too hard, Heath postponed a proposed Feb. 7 election either to sit it out until summer or provoke an all-out strike which they desperately hoped would win them overwhelming public support. The uncertainty of which direction to take was evident in Heath's tactics. He happily boasted of the interminable meetings he had with TUC and miners' leaders to show he was a conciliator. Yet, he was determined not to yield to miners without a show of a fight. In a distorted way, Heath in these few weeks mirrored the confusion in The strike of the miners decided Heath and the-Tory Cabinet, with support of the majority of the party, to go for the election they had postponed two weeks before. It was a snap election, presumably to defeat the miners, yet the weakness of the ruling class in the face of the strength of the trade union movement was demonstrated by the way the Tories campaigned. They could not fight "a strongly anti-union campaign" for a campaign that was openly anti-union and not based on the basic acceptance that the miners would have to be paid was "foolhardy" as "it is hard to see how any genuinely constructive long-term solution to our industrial problems can be based upon a foundation of violent bitterness and recrimination such as would be laid in a campaign of this kind" (FT. 8.2.74) Heath took this into account in his opening speech of the campaign, when he said: "There will be no union-bashing of any kind as far as the Conservative Party is concerned.
Nevertheless the Tory press and media was now mobilised in full cry for a Tory victory. With the exception of the Daily Mirror(whose motives were more subtle), all the dailies were against Labour. The 'Liberal revival' was given prominent coverage to build an alternative to Labour. The left in the trade unions and Labour Party were subtly linked as 'extremists' alongside the terrorist 'extremists' of the IRA or the Middle East. On polling day, the Tory papers tried to create a 'bandwagon' effect and demoralise Labour voters. The Daily Mail screamed 'A handsome win for Heath'' - "Mr Heath will be back in No. 10 tomorrow with a heavily increased majority of 50 to 100 seats". The Daily Express predicted a 100 seat majority. The Sunday Express warned its readers: "let us be quite clear what it will mean if Ted Heath is defeated. The blackness of a jungle might well have descended over Britain. It must not happen." The Daily Telegraph warned of "utter disaster" if Labour won. than the first".
feet of the miners again.
Yet, the miners'
SNAP ELECTION the ruling class itself about whether to confront or concede.
Our quarrel is only with the extremists"
19
[page 21]
This hysterical reaction was not part of Tory press propaganda in the three previous elections. But now the situation was different: no longer was the working class a passive giant willing to accept any small concession handed out in thirteen years of Tory rule. It had learnt by bitter experience during the beginning of serious economic restraint after 1964 that only trade union action paid. Nearly every layer of the working class has engaged in industrial action since then, from heavy industry sections, through to lower paid local authority workers, teachers, hospital staff, firemen and even local government officers and the fingerprint men at Scotland Yard. In the process the old right-wing leaders of the unions, who wanted 'a peaceful life' had been ousted and replaced by men more attuned to the new mood and reflecting to some degree the desire to fight. This change has also been reflected in the leadership of the Labour Party (although more slowly and not in the Parliamentary Labour Party). The Labour Party was no longer so firmly under the grip of the Gaitskellites of the fifties and early sixties, who had denied the existence of a class society and class struggle and believed in the harmonious progress of a Now that Labour leaders were increasingly under pressure to take action against capitalism in one way or an other, and the rank and file of the Labour Party was much more critical of the leadership after the experience of the 1964-70 Labour government. Labour could no longer be regarded by the ruling class as just a second eleven, capable of coming in on a sticky wicket, because if it had the same batting order, it now had a very unruly supporters club! The Financial Times summed it up soberly: "we saw no reason for disquiet in the prospect of a Labour victory in 1966 and that in 1970 we saw no strong reason to back one against the other....BUT .... in the present election we see no alternative but to hope for an adequate overall Conservative But despite a snap election, the Tory press, the intervention of the Liberals and the past record of the Labour leaders, short of an outright large Labour victory, the election result was the worst possible for the ruling class. It was clearly a defeat for Heath and Tory policies, but it left no clear result in a period of severe economic crisis. The reality of the Tory defeat and the feeling in the working class, is evident from the detailed results. There was a much higher poll: an increase from 71.5% to 79%. There were much larger increases in the poll in strong working class areas: 13-18% compared to the average 7%. The great Liberal revival nowhere matched press predictions. They polled 19% of the vote compared to the predicted 23-25%. They took only 14 seats. Of these, 10 used to be Tory and only 3 Labour. Of the next 13 seats they were closest to taking, 12 were Tory and only 1 Labour. It is clear that much of the Liberal vote was anti-Tory. When voting is compared in seats where a Liberal did not stand in 1970, in Tory strongholds the Liberal vote averaged 31%, while in safe Labour seats it was only 18%. In Tory marginals, when Labour stood a better chance of winning, it fell dramatically to 20.4%, while remaining 18% in Labour marginals. This meant that on average the Liberals got 5,000 votes from Labour in attempts to 1 million could be added to Labour from the Liberals. In all the major industrial areas, Labour polled well, getting higher than average swings away from the Tories. In these areas, the Liberal challenge was decimated, eg. Liverpool and Birmingham. In no way could these swings be explained by the 'Powell' effect, ie. Enoch Powell telling Tory supporters to vote Labour, even in the West Midlands. It was a class vote for Labour despite some sceptical That was clear in the dismal showing of the sects on the periphery of the Labour movement. In a class struggle against the Tories, the working class on the industrial plane turned to their official organisations, the trade unions and now on the political plane they turned to the Labour Party - not only in votes but in active support, canvassing etc. The Communist Party polled less votes on average than in 1970 and actually less votes than its proclaimed membership! Their programme as exactly the same or even to the right of the programme of the lefts in the Labour Party. With no clear policy distinction, workers would naturally vote Labour as the mass party. Only Jimmy Reid of all the CP candidates saved his deposit. The other sects did even more poorly: their best result being 2.2% of On the right, the National Front did slightly better, but everywhere failed to save their deposits, which they had managed to do in a by-election. This time they could poll no higher than 7%. Because the Tories had fought the if only to a limited extent, on 'who runs the country' and posed problems in class terms, the working class to mobilise support from the most downtrodden and unorganised sections of working people, who continued to vote Tory or Liberal. Labour's campaign throughout was controlled by the right wing Shadow Cabinet leaders, although the left is in nominal majority of the National Executive. The aim of the leadership was at all costs to avoid any stigma of 'socialist extremism'. They wished to appear as a party of moderation alongside the Tories and Liberals. The leadership was acutely sensitive to any criticism by the Tory press. At the start, Callaghan and Hayward, as Chairman and Secretary of the Party, issued a statement condemning the Communist Party for suggesting the overthrow of the Tory government, when the Tory press began a wild campaign on the remarks of Mick MeGahey, the CP miners' leader (who subsequently retracted). In the first week of the campaign, Wilson did 'mixed economy' capitalism.
majority."
CLASS VOTE FOR LABOUR get the Tories out in their safe seats.
feelings for Labour's past record) on the part of industrial workers.
the vote in one constituency!
election, turned as an organised force, in the industrial areas, to Labour.
Nevertheless, Labour's vote was the lowest Labour leaders 20 So although the Tories polled 11,928,000 to Labour's 11,661,000, another share since the war and was a real condemnation of ability of the
[page 22]
In the second week he used it twice.. The most frequently used words were 'family'
appeared at press conferences with backdrops of the Union Jack and talked of building 'one nation' in strikingly who were former leaders of the Campaign for Democratic Socialism, which had hounded the lefts in the party in the sixties and spawned people like Dick Taverne, Richard Marsh and other 'social democrats'. And what was the programme of the right-wing Labour leaders? Anthony Crosland set the tone by stating that during the next two or three years domestic living standards must be ruthlessly held back while we correct the gigantic non-oil balance of payments deficit. There can be little increase in private spending or government expenditure and many expectations will be sharply disappointed." John Macintosh, Labour MP, raised the idea again of a statutory incomes policy to which the TUC would be bound by agreement, and "for unions, strikes, overtime bans and go-slows aimed against the award could be declared unfair under the Industrial Relations Act or whatever legislation may replace it and welfare benefits withdrawn from the families of those on strike." In fact, Macintosh's policy was indistinguishable from the Tory manifesto issued during the election!
Crosland proposed "like the particular items in the programme, cannot all be fulfilled at once" because of the economic problems and "it would be wholly wrong to imagine that one wave of our magic wand will make them disa- The right-wing accepted the continuance of the capitalist system for all time and therefore straightforwardly posed the need to make the working class pay for righting it, before reforms could be conceded. It was an openly Tory policy! Gaitskellite reformism in the period of economic crisis in the seventies had become reformism without reforms! (It is hardly surprising that Macintosh lost his seat to the Scottish Nationalists). Such a programme was hardly likely to appeal to the unskilled, underprivileged, low-paid, unorganised working class, who had lost most under successive Tory and Labour governments pursuing 'moderate' policies, and had become bewildered and cynical about either major party. This time many voted Liberal. They voted for a party which, out of 500 candidates had only 5 manual workers, 4 students and 13 housewives and no trade unionists, but 230 lecturers and professional people, 111 managers, directors and bankers, and 55 civil servants and journalists! The left-wing of the party ran their campaign on the basis of the manifesto, which was a watered-down version There was to be reversal of the Tory handouts to the rich: price controls and not mention the word 'socialism'
similar terms to Tory press conferences.
in order to pay for the economic crisis 3½ years of Tory attacks were enough for the workers...
of the 1973 Conference resolutions.
once in any of his speeches.
"there must be no easy promises, glib statements or rash pledges ... and , 'nation', 'moderation'. He He was advised by Gaitskellites like John Harris and Bernard Donoghue, Even the limited reforms that 21
[page 23]
food subsidies; increase in pensions; some defence cuts; a wealth tax; plus limited nationalisation of various declining industries and building land. On this programme, it was hoped to get the trade unions to agree to abide by a 'social contract' with a Labour government, in which wage demands would be curbed. The aim of the programme was to bring about "a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families". If it was to do this effectively, it would quickly paralyse an economy which depends on increased profits to create investment and growth. A strike of capital, a sinking pound and a slump would follow. Without a full-blooded programme of public ownership, all reforms of the left would founder within the confines of the capitalist economy. If the programme was tempered, it would then be ineffective. A 1½% wealth tax on all personal wealth above £20,000 - the barest acceptable figure to the ruling class - would bring in only f450m a year at the most. Any increase in surtax at say 10p in the £ on incomes above £3,500 p.a. would bring in another £450m. In total, taxing the rich at figures which they would barely accept would only pay for the pensions increase alone and nothing else. For anything more, the working class must pay, as the Healey budget has shown. The fact that the Labour lefts talked about socialism and reform in their campaigns undoubtedly resulted in their better showing in the election, than the right-wing candidates. The Tribunite left-wing now has a strength of one- The Tory defeat was a cruel blow to the ruling class. Heath made frantic efforts to build a coalition with the cide with so much of their vote being anti-Tory. The ruling class is now in a serious dilemma. wish to avoid the return of a majority Labour government, but how to do it? They are uncertain if they could succeed in winning with a discredited Tory Party at the next election in astraightfight. Better to apply pressure on the Labour leaders to moderate their programme and drive them into a coalition government - a "government of national unity", ie. a Tory government in disguise. They see a real chance that such pressure could succeed despite the abortive attempt to bring Labour down in the Queen's Speech, which they withdrew at the eleventh hour. Both Callaghan and Crosland, before the election campaign, had talked of coalition government. Socialist Commentary, the journal which represents the viewpoint of the Gaitskellites, advocated a coalition with the Liberals, after the election results were known! It also said that the nationalisation measures should be dropped as the price of the coalition. But the success of such a policy for the ruling class depends on how the economic situation develops and how quickly Labour's policy for controlling inflation is seen to fail. That it will fail is inevitable. Price controls, if they are effective, can only squeeze profits, reduce investment and reduce production, which is what the CBI has threatened will happen, after Healey's Budget. More likely, they will be ineffective and bypassed in a host of exemptions and maneouvres by the big firms. Subsidies on essential foodstuffs have to i: paid for in taxation and the working class is to pay for those in the Healey budget, by increased prices for fuel and power and increased indirect taxation. In this sense, Heath was right when he said: "Mr Healey had been heralded as the knight in shining armour, who was going to soak the rich. Yet what has he done - he has increased taxation for everyone who pays tax, both directly and indirectly. He is no knight. All he came forward with is a Green Paper on a Wealth Tax and stuck it down his pants to prevent himself from getting caned " by the Labour rank and file. The economic crisis demands now a severe and lasting cut in the living standards of the working class, if British capitalism is to survive in the world arena, and that means a return to the thorny question of an 'incomes policy'. In Labour's manifesto, a loophole for such a policy was left, when it referred to "an understanding with the TUC on the lines which we have already agreed, will create the right economic climate for money incomes to grow in line with production." That means if there is no growth in production there should be no wage increases. But what happens if there is stagnation in production but raging inflation of prices, as is certain in 1974? Tony Benn said during the election: "There is no immutable law of economics or nature - no iron law of wages - which requires working people to be treated as a separate class allowed only to compete among themselves about who is to get most from a fixed proportion of the national income." He was referring to the Tory statutory wages policy, but the same idea is being applied in the terms of the social contract that the TUC and the union leaders are being asked to accept. Even the leader of the Left, Michael Foot, as Minister of Employment, has advocated it when he talked of "the need to contain inflation and to secure the orderly growth of incomes. Without this, excessive wage increases could shatter all our policies." What is excessive is not defined. But in terms of the present economy, any- Yet, Healey's Budget plus the proposal to repeal the Industrial Relations Act, has prompted the press, especially that ostensibly Labour paper, the Daily Mirror, to say that it is now upto Jones and Scanion to honour their part of union paper, Record, of the importance of "the preparation of realistic wage claims" as part of the union's response to the "socially just measures brought in by a sympathetic government." Len Murray says "we will respond in But such a 'contract' will crumble to dust when faced with the force of major price rises and the efforts of the trade union rank and file to compensate for them, whatever their leaders may have in mind. The breakdown of the third in the PLP, as signified by lan Mikardo's election as Chairman.
BLOW TO RULING CLASS Liberals to stop Labour taking office and the initiative.
thing above zero is excessive.
the bargain and moderate wage demands.
terms of wage claims, I'm sure."
22 But the Liberals could not afford to commit election sui- Above all, they The union leaders have responded accordingly. Jones has written in his
[page 24]
"social contract' will quickly raise the likelihood of a split in the Labour Party between those in the government who will insist, with the support of the press and media, on a programme of austerity, and the majority of the active members of the party, under the pressure of the working class, who will demand the promised reforms of the Labour manifesto and will resist any attempt to cut their standard of living. The spectre of a National Government is therefore very likely before the end of 1974. This would come about not through an election, but by a maneouvre using the right wing leaders of the Labour Party. The Tory press has already raised the possibility of using the monarchy, as it was used in 1924 and 1929, to call for a government of national unity to be formed rather than dissolve Parliament if the Wilson government fell. As Ronald Butt put it (Sunday Times 10/3/74) when he referred to the economic dangers facing the Labour government: "it is still not wholly inconceivable that these could precipitate the Grand Coalition that many people want.... it would be absolutely proper constitutionally for the Queen to decline to dissolve this Parliament until she first explored the possibility of forming a government with a majority. of a ruling class desperate to avoid an outright Labour victory: "The essential stabilising value of the neutral monarchy is that it is available for just such a time as this to see that the country, under fair conditions, is able to have a government of some sort." That means its use as a 'neutral monarch' is not to be neutral when it matters! A National Government would be a setback for the working class, but it would quickly open up the Labour Party The right-wing leaders, by throwing in their lot with the Tories for a programme of retrenchment, would no longer be able to apply the brake to the leftward movement of the Labour Party. Many members of the PLP, which is predominantly composed of lawyers, lecturers, businessmen and journalists, may go over to a National Government. But the Labour Party as a whole would not be decimated. The working class would be aroused at the betrayal; pressure for real socialist solutions to the economic crisis would be mounted in the party. The way would be open in such a left-reformist or even centrist Labour Party, for the Marxist wing to gain large and even mass support. A National Government would be unable to solve the economic crisis without dealing with the strength of the Labour and trade union movement and could not last long, certainly not as long as the pre-war thirties National Government. Within a short time, a left Labour government could be returned, pledged to carry out a full programme of socialism. An Enabling Act to take over the major monopolies and banks, would lay the basis for a plan of production to meet the minimum needs of working people and begin to lay the basis of a socialist society. The success of such a policy would then depend on the development of a Marxist leadership capable of mobilising and uniting the whole working class into action, to defend the programme of socialism. Such unity in action would sweep away any attempt at reaction that is now being prepared by the ruling class. For behind the scenes they are preparing to exercise their first alternative in strategy: confrontation to smash the organised working class movement. They realise that this will be necessary if they are really to solve the economic and social crisis that British capitalism is trapped in. But as the Financial Times put it: "A policy of confrontation with one hand tied behind your back is not particularly wise. Governments that want to take on the powerful unions, should at least prepare the ground thoroughly by bringing the nation together in advance - and if necessary by modifying the ground-rules in their own favour well before..." (29/1/74). The Tory government began such a process with mobile teams to deal with pickets, with an intelligence centre at Scotland Yard to organise their distribution. The army has engaged in joint maneouvres with the police at Heathrow to practice searching of civilians and the sealing-off of key centres of communication. In Hull, the Territorial Army has engaged in search-and-arrest practice maneouvres in working class areas, including the smashing down streets. The Monday Club, the right wing tendency in the Tory Party, has advocated vigilante groups for 'emergencies' to "look for suspicious behaviour and help the armed forces' :" it would be a counter to the similar groups of the left which have existed for years. (?) Surely a system like this would channel into respectable uniform, people who otherwise with the lack of activity by the authorities, might be tempted to join private armies." Picketing laws were tightened up in the Courts, where Lord Widgery said in the High Court that Recently, Nicholas Ridley, a former Tory Minister, advocated the outlawing of strikes in key services industries like gas, electricity, railways and the mines! All the ingredients for a successful Socialist transformation of society are beginning. Even one Labour minister "more is yet needed before radical political action occurs. That requires, in combination, a crisis in society (which the present state of the economy foreshadows); a crisis of self-confidence in the governing group (of which there are definite signs); a sense of self-identification in a new class (dissipated in the 1950's, now returning via UCS and work-ins) and a new elite capable of providing leadership. It is this last condition which it is the fundamental task of class politics to provide!" (Michael Meacher in New Statesman 4/1/74). While Marxists would not agree that an "elite" needs to be created, all the conditions that Meacher has outlined are the Marxist criteria for socialist change. Only one has not ripened sufficiently yet, and that is a Marxist leadership capable and prepared for the future struggles which will be necessary if the British working class is to succeed. That could still conceivably be a Grand Coalition."
to Marxist ideas.
of doors of empty houses in certain "pickets had no rights whatsoever"
has recognised this:
The real role is revealed for the monarchy in the maneouvres 23
[page 25]
POPULAR FRONTISM
Mrs Bandaranaike meets Mao Tse tung
IN SRILANKA
BY