Norwood's line explained

Scan page 11

and challenged by expelled Militant supporters Left: Keith Dickenson - Hammersmith North won't recognise his expulsion. Right: Clare Doyle, Lynn Walsh - Norwood 'notes' their expulsion While Islington Central and Hammersmith North CLPs have refused to recognise the expulsion of Militant EB members, Norwood Labour Party - the other CLP involved - has voted to 'note' the expulsion. The CLP secretary has circulated this letter to the left press.

Militant editorial board members Clare Doyle and Lynn Walsh have replied, calling on the CLP to reconsider.

Dear Comrade, We are writing to the Executive of Norwood Labour Party following the decision of the General Management Committee on March 1 to 'note' our expulsion from the Labour Party. We also wish to reply to the letter, dated March 7, which you sent to 'Militant' and presumably to other papers.

As Norwood CLP's policies had previously been one of strong opposition to the right-wing's witchhunt against 'Militant' and in view of repeated statements by representatives of the Executive that Norwood CLP would stand firm against expulsions, we are surprised and shocked by the GMC's decision to 'note' the NEC's instructions to delete our names from the party's membership list. This is, in reality, a shame-faced way accepting our expulsions.

Rushed through

It is very disturbing that the Executive's proposal to reverse its policy and merely to 'note' our expulsions was rushed through the GMC without any notice and before the issue could be disfussed in the Branches and affiliated trade unions. We recognise, however, that to their great credit a significant minority of GMC delegates voted to reject our expulsions, and we would like to thank them for their support.

We were also surprised and disturbed that the officers of the party, despite our approaches, were not prepared to consult us in any way about Ted Knight the expulsions or the CLP's proposed reaction.

In contrast to Islington Central CLP and Hammersmith North CLP, which are refusing to accept the expulsions of Peter Taaffe, Ted Grant and Keith Dickinson, Norwood's decision can only weaken the campaign to reverse the five expulsions and defeat the witch-hunt.

We would therefore ask the Executive and the GMC to consider the issue further and to discuss firm action based on a retusal to accept our expulsions.

We enclose a statement which we have drawn up, and we request that it is circulated to all Norwood GMC delegates prior to further discussion (we will provide copies).

It is to be hoped that the Executive of the newly reorganised Norwood Party, in spite of comments by some present EC members, will not attempt to hide behind the old CLP's Standing Order 19, which rules out further discussion on a motion which has been voted on for three months. If the motion passed at the March 1 GMC really means what it says, that the NEC's decision is 'noted' , this should not in any way rule out a discussion of further, more resolute action in line with Norwood's previous Dear comrade, The Norwood Labour Party regardless of major differences with Militant on such issues as the Falklands war, Ireland, Palestine and women's rights, has firmly opposed the witch-hunt of Labour Party members associated with that paper.

Yet at the Greater London Labour Party Regional Conference we experienced an insidious smear campaign of lies and distortion directed against our CLP, and particularly against our chairperson, Ted Knight. This reached the gutter level of delegates being told in behind the scenes policy.

We would also like to take up some of the comments in your letter to the press of March 7, and answer the allegations which, by implication, could be taken to be aimed at 'Militant' supporters.

We are not aware of any allegations that members of Norwood EC or Ted. Knight personally have 'moved expulsions of Militant members from the Labour Party' or have backed the witch-hunt, and we have certainly never implied anything of the kind. We do not believe that anyone in Norwood CLP welcomes our expulsions.

Capitulation

However, we have strongly argued that 'notes' really means 'accepts' and this, in practice, means capitulation without a fight. Norwood CLP's renewed declaration that it will campaign to reverse the expulsions is completely: undermined by not taking the expected action of refusing to accept expulsions.

The Militant Editorial Board have never advocated a policy of deliberately provoking the disband ment of CLP's. We disassociated ourselves from those who, at the beginning of the battle, began irresdiscussions that Ted has 'moved the expulsions of Militant members from the Labour Party', and that Norwood was backing the witch-hunt.

The position of Norwood Labour Party is, clearly spelt out in our letter to the NEC dated March 2 1982 which is reproduced below:

'The Norwood Labour Party GMC meeting on March 1, in noting your letter of February 24 recorded its total opposition to the expulsions of comrades Doyle and Walsh, and also to that of comrades Dickenson, Grant and Taffe.

It calls NEC :123 ponsibly to talk of disbandment as if they were courting such an outcome. But we were certainly not advocating that expulsions should be accepted without a fight.

Campaign

The response of the right-wing dominated NEC to a rejection of the expulsions, and whether or not the NEC can get away with closing down Norwood, Islington Central and Hammersmith North CLPs, will depend on the strength of the campaign of CLPs and Trade Unions against expulsions and the witch-hunt. When the GMC discussed the issue on March 1 there was no threat of disbandment or any other action by the NEC.

If and when the CLP faces the threat of disbandment, Norwood can decide how to deal with such a threat. We believe, however, that the witchhunt can be defeated by a determined fight. Today is not the 1950s and 1960s, when the Gaitskellite right completely dominated the party. The overwhelming majority of CLPs and an increasing number of active trade unionists are totally opposed to any attempt to trample on the democratic rights of CLPs.

A determined fight does reverse this decision, and to end the witch-hunt against members of the Labour Party associated with the Militant paper.

It is the view of the Norwood Labour Party that the 1982 Annual Conference did not give the authority to expel such members and notes that the letter from the General Secretary does not indicate under which rule the action has been taken. We therefore insist on an answer to this question.

The Norwood Labour Party has had bitter experiences of similar witch-hunts in the 1950s and 1960s, and know that such not 'play into the hands of the right' . It is capitalation without a fight which will strengthen the right, and could encourage the right-wing NEC to intervene even more boldly against left-wing parties.

You say that Ted Knight's removal from the Regional Executive in the elections held at the Greater London Labour Party Annual Meeting on March 5/6 is la boost to the right wing on the NEC' We would point out, however, that the conference remained firm in its commitment to left-wing policies; re-elected an overwhelmingly left-wing regional executive; and passed a resolution condemning the five expulsions by 469,000 to 254,000.

Defeated

A resolution calling for the three CLPs to refuse to accept expulsions was fairly narrowly defeated, by 400,500 votes to 338,000. The Regional Executive recommended support, and the great majority of constituency delegates voted for this resolution but it was defeated on the strength of the trade union block votes.

In relation to Ted Knight's failure to be reelected to the Regional Executive, we can only actions are politically damaging and electorally counter-productive.

The Norwood Labour Party is committed to campaigning within the Labour arty and the trades unions to reinstate the expelled members.. Likewise, we will campaign to reverse the decision on the 'Register' and any attempt to reintroduce "bans and proscriptions'?

A meeting between the officers of Islington Central, Hammersmith North and Norwood has already been arranged to plan a joint campaign for the reinstatement of the expelled members, and the support assume, in the light of other Conference decisions, that the glaring contrast between Ted's earlier bold opposition to the witch-hunt and his present refusal to advocate decisive action was one factor which led many delegates not to support him.

We notice that at the beginning of your letter to the press you refer to Norwood's firm opposition to the witch-hunt against Militant 'regardless of major differences with Militant on such issues as the Falklands war, Ireland, Palestine and women's rights'. • This comment is puzzling in that, while the GMC has undoubtedly passed resolutions on these questions, there are nevertheless many differences within Norwood CLP and there can hardly be said to bé a hard-and-fast, unified line on all these questions.

You might also have mentioned Militant's opposition to Lambeth Labour Group's decisions to sell council houses, to raise rents, and to attempt to avoid cuts through • imposing massive rate increases on working-class rate-payers. These measures have undoubtedly contributed significantly to the party's poor showing in recent elections and the alarming rise in resignations among Norwood of other CLPs and trade union branches will be sought.

The enthusiasm with which the Tory press greeted Ted Knight's removal from the Regional Executive Committee is a tribute to both him and the Norwood Labour Party, but regrettably is a boost to the right-wing majority on the NEC.

We suggest that all our energies should now be directed to stopping the witch-hunt and to reinstating those expelled.

Yours fraternally, Ken Phipp PARTY SECRETARY CLP's working-class membership on the estates. As you know, Militant supporters have consistently argued for a strategy based on mobilisation of a mass movement of opposition to the Tory government, on the basis of no cuts, no rent increases, and no massive rate rises to compensate for cuts in the central-government grants. After beginning such a fight in 1979, Lambeth Council Labour Group then retreated prematurely.

These are all issues on which there will inevitably be argument and debate. We believe, however, that on the issue of our expulsions we should be able, now the crunch has come, to rely on Norwood CLP's firm backing. We are both Labour Party members of 19 years standing, and we work for a socialist paper which has always campaigned for the return of a Labour government and the implementation of Labour's programme. Militant, unlike some papers and groups in the past, has no intention of allowing itself to be separated from the Labour Party.

Effective açtion

The firm action clearly required by the present situation is refusal to accept our expulsions. We agree that 'all our energies should be now directed to stopping the witch-hunt and to reinstating those expelled' • We therefore urge you again to back up your denunciations of the witch-hunt with concrete proposals for immediate, effective action.

When the working class is faced with the most reactionary Tory government since the 1930s, our over-riding task should be to unite the party membership around a fight for socialist policies, the defeat of the Tory-SDP/Liberal enemy, and the return of a majority Labour government committed to the implementation of a socialist programme..

Yours fraternally, Clare Doyle Lynn Walsh

Scan page 12

Socialist Organiser no. 124, March 17, 1983, Page 12