Political Commentary
Oh God! Oh Blackpool!
John Grigg
Since last weekend Blackpool has been the political capital of England, with most of our Present ruling establishment—Labour ministers and trade union leaders—collected there. In many ways it is a suitable place to serve as our capital city in the mid-Seventies, With its emphasis upon recreation and consumption, its tawdry squalor, its Philistine complacency, and the universal smell of fish and chips (with associated sauces) poisoning the sea air. All in all Blackpool is a living monument to the conservatism of the English working class.
So, alas, is the Labour Party. Though to outward appearance no longer a proletarian Party, its prevailing ethos is still that of class war, and Labour conference delegates seem intent upon remaining mentally, if not financially, proletarian. They do not think of Britain as a national community with shared loyalties and problems, but as a Country in which there is an unresolved struggle between 'working people' and 'the Capitalist system'. Their attitude can fairly be expressed in the syllogism: Labour is good, Labour is socialist, therefore socialism Must be good. And their definition of socialism is that enshrined in the party's fifty-yearold constitution. Of course this is not the attitude of most Labour voters, nor is it the attitude of the present Labour leadership. But neither voters nor leaders have yet succeeded in modifying the traditional character of the party itself, which—as the Pound's latest plunge indicates—is now a Most grave threat to the British economy.
Any half-witted backwoodsman from a Constituency Labour party in suburbia or the shires who goes to the rostrum and, after denouncing the capitalist conspiracy, argues that Britain should swiftly be transformed into a complete socialist state, is almost sure to get a cheer. But the case for a mixed economy and the measures necessary to Make it work is virtually never stated from the floor, let alone applauded. If any major trade union leader would have the courage to say that free collective bargaining would either destroy, or be destroyed by, the sort of socialism that the backwoodsmen advocate, the effect upon world confidence would be electric. Instead, most union leaders are still Preaching that sort of socialism themselves.
Mr Callaghan, for his part, made a brave speech on Tuesday, and it is worth recalling the conference's reaction to it in some detail. His tribute to Sir Harold Wilson was listened to in silence until he mentioned Lady Wilson, When there was a round of sympathetic applause. (On Monday the delegates gave Sir Harold a very tepid reception when he appeared on the platform, but there was strong applause—which he heard—for a
caustic reference to his resignation honours list.) At only six points in Mr Callaghan's speech (apart from the moment when he sat down) were his words received with anything like enthusiasm. The first was more than half-way through, when he declared that all forms of racial discrimination must be opposed. The next was when he thanked Michael Foot for his loyal cooperation. The third, when he attacked 'the expensive and bureaucratic local government structure foisted on us by the last Conservative administration'. The fourth, when he praised the women's peace movement in Ulster. The fifth—significantly—when he said that Labour's national executive was responsible only for its statements and resolutions, whereas the Government was accountable for its actions. And finally, when he asked if the Party was satisfied with a youth movement 'increasingly dominated by a single brand of socialist sectarianism'.
On the other hand there was no response at all when he said, earlier: 'Of course in Eastern Europe you cannot price yourself out of a job because you cannot withdraw your labour, so those governments can guarantee at least the appearance of full employment. But that is not, I understand, the democratic way'. There was no response when he said that inflation had hit hardest 'not those with the strongest bargaining power' (words absent from the prepared text of his speech) but 'the poor, the old and the sick'. And there was only brief and perfunctory applause for his crucial statement that industry 'must be able to earn a surplus, which is a euphemism for saying that they must make a profit'.
Perhaps it was something that he was able to utter such a heresy at all without being booed. In any case, many of the passages that failed to please the delegates were calculated, for that very reason, to impress the general British public and the world at large. Mr Callaghan is a good party man, but he knows that in the present crisis he has to put the nation first. As a foreign journalist remarked to me, he speaks—unlike his predecessor—with authority. But will he be authoritative in deeds as well as words? It is clear that he has decided to get at the Left through the national executive, rather than by trying, as Gaitskell vainly did, to tamper with the Party's official creed.
But will the Party support him in a showdown with what is meant to be its supreme policy-making body ? He cannot be accused of sour grapes, because before he was elected party treasurer he was regularly elected to the NEC by the votes of constituency parties. It is also helpful to him that the top trade unionists despise the NEC and
do not bother to stand font. On a number of key issues they have backed him against it, though unfortunately they share the Leftwing view on penal taxation and nationalisation of the banks, and would probably join with the Left if there were any further substantial cuts in public expenditure.
The delegates may have applauded Mr Callaghan's tough talk about the NEC and his reference to the single brand of socialism dominating the Party's youth movement, but they showed delight at the election of the left-winger, Norman Atkinson, to the party treasurership, and there was no sign of an anti-Left swing in elections to the NEC. So will the Prime Minister be able to carry the Labour movement with him in all the steps that may have to be taken to prevent a total collapse of sterling, or will some of the brethren, at all levels, prefer to shed responsibility and return to the more natural role of opposition ?
The lack of any barrier to extremism in the Labour Party was glaringly apparent on Monday evening at a fringe meeting organised by the Revolutionary Socialists, on the theme that British troops must be withdrawn from Ulster. This was held in a smokefilled discotheque within a stone's-throw of the Imperial Hotel, where Mr Callaghan and other Labour leaders were holding court; and it was as well-attended as space would allow. The star speaker was Bernadette McAliskey, nee Devlin, who is a fanatic of beguiling eloquence and charm, in spite of the wickedness of her message. To her, the British forces in Ulster are simply 'the armed wing of the British ruling class', who were sent there in the first place not to protect the minority but to protect British interests, and because 'the Catholics were fighting back so successfully'. They are not there 'because the British Government is so kind-hearted'. She admitted that half the Unionists (i.e. half a million people) wanted the troops to go so that they could tackle the Provisionals themselves, but she maintained all the same that they ought to be withdrawn immediately. A blood-bath ? Well, it was only a question of having a big one all at once instead of a steady day-by-day effusion of blood over months and years. She ended with a fervent appeal to British socialists to realise that the troops in Ulster were being trained to suppress them when the crash came.
The meeting was also addressed by Tom Litterick, MP and Joan Maynard, MP. Mr Litterick, on the strength of one visit to Ulster, claimed that it was the last bastion of British imperialism, and then switched to general Marxist propaganda about the economy, defence etc. He was a candidate for the NEC, but happily defeated. Miss Maynard, however, has been a member of it since 1970 and was returned again this week with a slightly larger vote. Her presence at the meeting, and her failure to protest against Mrs McAliskey's attribution of vile motives to the Labour Government, shows how fit she is to be one of the architects of future Labour policy.
Previous page
