Winning the arguments?

Scan page 2

DAY AFTER DAY on television we see a "balanced"' presentation of the election. First comes the "news" headlines - in which the latest Labour Party wrangle is introduced:

Then comes the election coverage. A Tory speaker denounces nuclear disarmament or nationalisation or some other 'Marxist" policy. An Alliance speaker also makes similar points.

Then, to complete the "balanced" presentation, comes a Labour front bench speaker ... if not actually denouncing then at best fudging and apologising for Labour's policies.

The ruling class is not short of convinced exponents of its Theirs is the easy role - swimming with the stream of the mass media, conforming to rather than challenging people's natural reluctance to embark on abrupt and complete change. They can concentrate their attention upon presenting the views of socialists as outlandish, wild-eyed schemes of fringe elements - whether doddering eccentrics like Michael Foot, or hard-faced In complete contrast, the representatives of the labour movement appear constantly uncomfortable, wearing the policies of the Labour manifesto like ill-fitting and uncomfortable costumes foisted upon them by malevolent stage-hands.

And in a real sense, this is true. Left policies of nuclear disarmament and nationalisation have been foisted upon a bitterly resistant right wing Labour leadership by the rank and The momentum that enabled this to occur was generated not through the "official" politics of Parliamentary shadow-boxing and media chat shows but through thousands of committed activists flying in the face of methods and institutions of the establishment - and leafletting, holding meetings, selling papers hand-to-hand, striking, demonstrating and mandating For those in favour of missiles, in support of cuts, and happy with unemployment, there is no call for such extraordinary effort. The onus is on those who fight for change.

Here is the contradiction of the Labour Party. While - unlike any of the other "establishment" parties - the rank and file can, at times, foist left wing policies on its leadership, they still have a leadership steering in quite a different direction.

While rank and file Labour activists are committed to the fight for change, the bulk of Labour's leaders are respected parts of the establishment, who see themselves and the Labour Party One reason why the unilateral case is widely rejected is because it has never been argued by Labour's leadership; the reason they won't argue it is because they recognise and fear the massive, lasting blow that scrapping Britain's nuclear weaponry would strike at British imperialism, its relations with NATO and the USA. These leaders identify more with British imperialism than with the rank and file of the Labour movement.

So when defeated on policy, Labour's leaders move to neuter the new line, by smothering it in respectable establishment jargon: unilateralism is submerged in talk of multilateral disarmament and support for NATO. Opposition to cuts and wage controls are wrapped up in vague talk about economic The job is done in such a way as to take the sting out of the radical policies, and to divorce them from any realistic perspecLabour activists who have fought battle after battle against cuts and wage controls, arguing that money should be lopped from profits rather than from wages and services, now find our leaders saying that the money for public services should be No wonder Labour comes across badly in the media. We have to change the media, together with the system of which they are part. But first, most importantly, and as a precondition, we have to change the labour movement and its leadership. views.

Marxist wreckers and rioters. file of the labour movement. delegates. as integral parts of the capitalist state. planning.

tives of struggle to achieve them.

found by ... borrowing from the capitalists! Tebbit: directors' club foreshadowed his strategy march for jobs TORTON! CUTS Geoff Coggan of the prisoners' rights group PROP explains the Albany riot THE Albany riot has exploded, perhaps once and for all, the notion that overcrowding is the cause of prison riots and that the simple answer is therefore to build new jails.

Albany, like that very 'other riot-prone prison, Gartree, 1s modern and uncrowded. Inere 1s never any cell-sharing in these prisons, nor in the other topsecurity prisons of Parkhurst, Long Lartin, Hull, Wakefield and Wormwood Scrubs D wing. authorities.

Some drugs have, of course, been the subject of recent public alarm after medical research has identified side effects leading to violent behaviour - for example after long-term use of Valium.

Whatever else can be said for or against cannabis, it has never attracted that particular charge from any knowledgeable quarter.

Speaking not only on behalf of PROP but also in the personal capacity of someone who has served part of a prison sentence alongside Paul Holmes, Andy Mulryan, Kevin Dumphy and other Irish political prisoners, and who has been on the rooftops of Parkhurst with them, I would deny categorically that Irish prisoners either have or could have the sort of influence which is alleged.