Emitted on constitutional issues. er, re-selection of MPs and responsibility for the Manitesto.
wing counter arguments.
Just before the last election, the N.E.C. and cabinet met to discuss the election manifesto. Despite N.E.C. objections, the campaign Callaghan ran virtually ignored every major conference decision for the past 5 years.
There was, of course, nothing new in this. Callaghan's whole period in office was a slap in the face for the millions who voted and campaigned to put him there. From decisions to 'tighten' immigration laws to imposition of the 5% wage freeze, used against the low-paid public sector unions, the government's policies flew in the face of conference decisions.
CONTEMPT The argument behind Callaghan's contempt for conference decisions has been spelled out pretty clearly by the 'gang of three who recently threatened to split from the LP if much-needed reforms went ahead.
A Labour government, Shirley Williams argued, cannot be bound by conference decisions without 'destroying representative democracy itself'. Its role is to rule in the 'national' interest and not in the interests merely of a section of society.
Needless to say, Williams' arguments have always won the resounding applause of those Labour ... i.... dead-set on muffling the voice of the workers movement.
They have given the 'gang of three' more space to advance their views than is usually reserved for pundits like Enoch Powell.
DEMOCRACY But just what is this 'national' interest MPs are supposed to protect as against the interests oi working people? Just what is this idol Labour MPs are supposed to At this year's party conference, over 60 amendments have been subThese revolve aromas une caree issucs that were central at last year's conference: election of the party leadBelow George Hold (Peckham CLP) takes up the importance of these issues as vital steps in democratising the party and challenges the rightbend the knee before instead of representing those who put them into power?
In a society dominated by the banks and giant monopolies, the national interest is clearly what serves to bolster their interests & increase their profits. The 'national' interest is, in this sense, a fraud, a cover-up for promoting the aims and investments of the b1g corp Olalis.
When Callaghan introduced his wage freeze of 5%, just whose interest was that in? Was it in the interests of working people or the giant monopolies who wanted workers' wages controlled while their profits soared?
FREEDOM When figures such as Rodgers or Williams argue for the "freedom' of government from conference decisions, they are arguing for a freedom to collaborate with the IMF, Tory inspired Civil Servants and big bankers to attack working people.
This is why they have let out a shrill voice of protest - calling for 'witch-hunts' against the left -when the issue of the government heeding conference resolutions ence, representing millions of of big business.
ence decisions, after all, they wouldn't be able to create mass unemployment, slash the social they?
FRIGHTENED In defence of their 'right' to as Williams actually have the is, you see, 'undemocratic' for 300-odd MPs to implement the wishes of the millions who put collaboration with unelected of Labour supporters. is posed. They know that conferworking people, is in direct conflict with the needs and interests CONFERENCE If they were bound by conferservices and freeze wages, would pursue such policies, figures such nerve to invoke 'democracy'. It them into office. It is so much more 'democratic' for them - in nue rough-shod over ine wistes They have equally argued that if a Labour government was accountable to conference, it would merely alienate large sections of the middle ground 'frightened' by the party's 'extremist image.
Such an argument is comical After 5 years of Callaghan's government - during which time he pursuca a strict rignt-wing course - Labour's share of the vote last April was the lowest in post-war history. How on earth can socialist policies lose votes when Callaghan's pro-capitalist ones have demoralised and driven The point is, if Labour's rightwing are so convinced a democratic party is wrong, they should leave. If they run as Labour members, if they are financed by and voted in by Labour supporters, they should abide by conference decisions. It's a free country. At this year's party conference, the points up for discussion -mandatory re-selection of MPs, election of party leader & NEC responsibility for the Manifesto - are critical for moving towards Rodgers, Williams and Owen - hiding their opposition to socialist policies a more democratic party.
They will also be critical if Labour is to win back, in the years ahead, its thousands of activists, its supporters in the unions and among women and Blacks. It has to show them it will pioneer their interests 11 office and not just restrict sup port to passing pious motions at conference which are left to gather dust on the shelf.
C its name -abide by its decisions.