THE LEFT ON THE LEFT

Consensus and the price of the Bill

ERIC S. HEFFER, MP

In the present political climate in Britain the consensus politician is like a fish out of water. That is not to say that his voice is stilled, but it is bound to be muted, and in- creasingly so for some time to come. The unpalatable truth that the consensus pragma- tist does not wish to recognise, is that the politics of the `middleway' has given ground to the politics of party extremism. Butskell- ism is as dead as a dodo.

What is remarkable is that most political commentators failed to observe the develop- ments which were taking place in the Con- servative party during Labour's six years in office. They were therefore somewhat surprised at the dogmatism of the Heath government, and are only just catching up with political reality.

Ted Heath has made it clear that he and his friends intend to revolutionise society in a right-wing direction. The welfare state will be reconstructed, ultimately bearing little resemblance to the welfare state as we have known it from 1945 to 1970. Free enterprise is to be given an unfettered rein, although under pressure from time to time the Government may backslide, as in the case of Rolls-Royce. But even so, government inter- vention will be minimal. The one group in society which will not be unfettered is the trade union movement. Here the Govern- ment are determined not to destroy the Movement (that would be an exaggeration) but to make it difficult to operate freely without state interference.

There is no doubt Plat the overwhelming majority of the Labour party are affronted by the Government's Industrial Relations Bill. The outburst in the House of Commons against the guillotine was not synthetic. Poli- tical commentators can be forgiven, however, for believing that,,qn this occasion, synthetic indignation had been worked up, because, un- fortunately, that has repeatedly taken place in the past. The left of the Labour party, Particularly those who entered Parliament in 1964, have looked on previous guillotine debates with bored distaste. It has been part of the parliamentary game which they have found rather artificial.

This time, however, the Government de- cided to clamp down a guillotine even be- fore the debates on the 150 clauses and eight schedules of the Bill had really got under Way. As the Bill is providing new courts, intruding law into a field it has kept out of in the past, and as it destroys the very basis of 100 per cent trade unionism, abolishing all forms of the closed shop etc., Labour MPS of all tendencies have reacted with genuine indignation and passion.

The left decided that something dramatic should be done to highlight the dangers of the Bill and to show the depth of feeling against the -guillotine. That is why forty or so MPs protested on the floor of the House, before the mace, anticipating that the out- come could be suspension from the House. The object of the exercise was not to under- mine parliamentary democracy, as some ob- servers have suggested, but to draw attention to the restriction of fair debate and a proper scrutiny of the Bill. The left feared that the Government's action was weakening demo- cratic parliamentary procedure. They were convinced something unusual had to be done to draw the nation's attention to it. The In- dustrial Relations Bill will undoubtedly weaken the trade unions vis-a-vis the em- ployers. This was the objective of the Taft- Hartley Act and Right to Work Laws in the United States, and Robert Carr's Bill has borrowed much from America. It will dimin- ish trade union recruitment. It makes illegal secondary boycotts and sympathetic strike action. It will encourage the non-unionist, and through the sole-bargaining agency ma- chinery lead to a proliferation of unions in- cluding company house unions which would be a recipe for industrial anarchy. The Bill will lead to more official and longer strikes. It is against certain no Conventions and the European Social Charter. In effect, it is part of the Heath philosophy of revolutionising society. All this is being done in the name of fairness, responsibility and freedom within the law. It is the view of the left, and indeed of the whole party, that it is a restriction of freedom, particularly for that section of the community which produces the wealth.

It is important to understand that the pre- sent left in the Labour party, whilst continu- ing in the Bevanite mould, is a very different animal indeed. This is something the political analysts seem to have missed. The Bevan- ites were led by a group of intellectuals who had little connection with the trade union movement. That is why it was rela- tively easy for right-wing trade union leaders to sneeringly refer to the Bevanites as 'long- haired intellectuals'. They could, and did, turn too many of the trade union rank and file against the Bevanites.

The parliamentary left today is primarily made up of left-wing trade unionists, sup- ported by middle-class intellectuals. The re- sult is that the left, both in Parliament and in the country, is no longer isolated. It gives genuine voice on real 'gut' issues and to ideas being expressed at grass roots level. The left wing issues in Parliament reflect very much the attitudes of many present-day trade union leaders. This is a new element and it is this, helped on hy Ted Heath's policies, that is moving the Labour party towards a more left position. It has also been the rea-

son for the parliamentary left's strong re- action to the Industrial Relations Bill.

The parliamentary left has allies in the centre of the party and among those who in the past perhaps could be called the trade union right. However, labels are so often meaningless. People do not easily fit into classified pigeonholes. It is only in a situa- tion like the one we have today, that the true character of the Labour party is re- vealed. Whilst it is not strictly a trade union party, it is crystal clear that it could not exist without the trade unions, and whether all members like it or not it is essentially a class party, as is the Tory party. The class nature of the present political struggle is there for all to see. This may be considered regrettable by 'consensus men', but facts are facts.

There are those who say that by remaining in the centre the Labour party can regain its lost support, and the electorate will eventu- ally fall into its hands like a ripe apple. It is a theory that has some attractions, but it would be fatal for Labour to heed it.

The logic of events is moving the Labour party to the left. Labour politicians who during six years of office developed policies which ran counter to party thinking, do not wish to be reminded of them. They rightly conclude that it is better to forget than to defend.

For some time to come the immediate scene will be the struggle on the industrial front. Strikes are likely to grow in intensity, not diminish. The Government's Industrial Relations Bill may be 'popular', but they are forgetting, or have not understood, that the fastest growing sector of the trade union movement is that of the white-collar workers, who in the past were traditional Tory sup- porters. These workers have not glimpsed the new Jerusalem. but they have tasted some of the pheasant and port wine. They like the taste and are rightly demanding more. They are quickly learning the benefits of trade union organisation, and like all converts, tend to proselytise more than those who have known the truth since birth.

The shock troops in the parliamentary battle on the Industrial Relations Bill are those MPS who would be broadly classified as left, although not all belong to the Tribune Group. However, a wide and genuine unity has been forged right across the party. The singing of the 'Red Flag' in the Chamber of the House of Commons by the whole of the Parliamentary Labour party is not without significance. It was either the last fling of a dying ideal, or the renewal of the party's socialist faith. I believe it was the latter.