whole period in office was a continual slap in the face for the Party's six and a half million members who voted and campaigned to put him there. From decisions to 'tighten up' immigration the aims and investments of the big corporations.
When Wilson introduced In Place of Strife in 1968, just whose interest was that in? When Callagwhich time, in defiance of the NEC, he pursued a firm rightand a half million bothered to wing course-the Labour share of the vote last April was the lowest in the post-war period. Only nine Late last month, Tony Benn and Eric Heffer - who also refused to stand for the Shadow Cabinet - delivered what the press called a political 'time-bomb' to Jim Callaghan. They submitted an 8-point proposal calling for greater democracy in the Parliamentary Labour Their 8-point proposal would if accepted, cut away the arbitrary and undemocratic patronage system of the Labour leader - who can appoint and dismiss members of the cabinet at whim - and replace it with democratic elections The points include:
*the party meeting to become the main forum for debate & the final authority on policy;
* the front-bench spokespeople to be elected by open ballot;
* the subject groups in the PLP to have the right to nominate Labour's members on the Common's * no names to be put forward on the part of the Labour Part!
* these arrangements, if agreed, to 'remain in force when a Labour government is in ottice.
The proposals, as they stand, clearly reflect the growing feeling within the Labour Party on the need for greater internal democracy and for making its representatives more accountable.
Benn himself has been at great pains to identify with this feeling. Speaking recently at the annual conference of ASLEF, he stressed that 'The Labour movement has always been against unnaccountable power, whether in the House of Lords or by multi - national companies, world bankers or in the secrecy surrounding the operations of the government machThe Benn proposals would appear to cut away this "secrecy' and instil more open government. The cabinet -elected by the broad body of Labour MPs and not appointed at the whim of the Prime Minister - would, ostensibly, be under the control of the Parliamentary Labour Party which would have the final say on matters of There is, however, a serious danger implicit in Benn's proposals which the Guardian was quick to spot. 'The proposals provide the Parliamentary Labour Party with an enormously greater authSocialist Action Editor; Tony Roberts Dist. Manager; Anne Williams Bus. Manager; Dave Macleod published by SOCIALIST ACTION 58 Auckland Rd SE 19 ority', they write, 'at a time wher pressure is building up for the re inforcement of the powers of the party conference & execut::: committee in matters of polic!
The point is well-taken. A::: stage in Benn's proposals is ther: any mention of the rights of per: conference or of the need fo: MPs to become more accountas.= to the labour movement as a whole. Instead of the conferer. se becoming the "final authorit! r policy' - which is the growing sentiment taking place in part branches - Benn substitutes te Parliamentary Labour Part!
No-one would deny, certa:: the need to push firmly for the cabinet to become accountar: to the PLP. But it is much:.. important that the PLP shand itself, become accountable party conference which re ents the broad labour!.: where policies are derti... thrashed out.
DIVERSION?
The Benn proposals can be :: use only insofar as they compie:. ent the general feeling growing: the party to make its MPs - wh. are financed by the party and w run on the Labour Party ticke:. responsible to conference.
If, on the contrary, they are used as a substitute - if they are used to try to keep power withir the hands of a few hundred MP: by creating a facelift in the par!iamentary machinery - then the! will become a diversion away frer the attempt to create greater der:ocracy in the party as a whole.
The main proposals coming up at this year's annual conference will be: are MPs going to be open to mandatory re-selection? Is the leader of the Labour Party going to be elected by conference as a whole or by a group of unrepres entative MPs? Who decides polic! —the party conference or the PLP: Benn and Heffer have to be asked where do you stand on these vita questions? Do you accept that MPs are accountable to the labour movement or not?