sion from the record of the Government. Such solutions are right in line with the philosophy of the social contract. They pretend that there is a solution which can protect bosses and workers, this time in a 'fortress Britain'.
There is no such common interest. Those like Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon who pretend that there is merely seek to conceal the essence of the social contract - that the working class should bear the expense of the economic crisis.
The fig-leaf of import controls seeks to hide the fact that after the collapse of the 'traditional left' in the trade unions, the left MP's have given up the fight against the leadership of Callaghan and Healey. Of course there are motions to this Conference which express an alternative to the collaboration of the Labour Government - a class struggle alternative. But those tew that call for mass action against the Government's policies are marked for defeat.
Resolutions Nor is the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy adequate to prevent these resolutions - even if they are passed — gathering dust in the files of Smith Square. The procedures on selection of parliamentary candidates start to pose the basic question about Labour MP's and the Labour Government - whether they are responsible to the working class or to Parliament. But a pressure campaign against the right wing will only result in the use of the bureaucratic methods against which campaign protests to crush their objections. The first weapon in the arsenal that has been used is the three year rule. There are others.
problem that this movement lefts fight, although this is an essential starting point. The reai nettle that has to be grasped is that even if the lefts do fight, such caucuses must be organised on a national level within the party, to counter the Callaghan-Healey leadership.
It is in this process that an alternative leadership can start to emerge from the rank and file of the party - a class struggle left wing, not a "left wing' based on the politics of collaboration with the betrayals of the Labour Government.
Serious Much more serious questions are at stake in this conference than the evaluation of the extent to which the Government has kept to its programme. As the results of the recent by-elections show, massive abstentions by Labour voters as well as gains from the Labour base to the organisations of the far right are the consequence of the attacks which this Government has made on the working class.
Already in Scotland the emergence of the Scottish Labour Party has come through the passivity and corruption of Labour in Scotland. It is stupid to deny that the SLP, through its rejection of the cuts, unemployment and incomes policy has taken a step to the left of the Labour Party.
The SLP will be standing candidates in the next General Election. Red Weekly will support them, while calling for the return of Labour because unlike even the leftest of the lefts on the NEC this party is committed to voting against the central aspects of the Government's anti-working class programme.
The by-elections in Walsall and Stechford will also be marked by the appearance of far Party, but because we think that what has to be emphasised today is the necessity for a fight back based on mass action against the policies of cuts, unemployment and incomes policy.
We will fight for all workers candidates to present their programme before meetings and assemblies of trade unionists, Labour Parties, black organisations and other workers organisations. Programme The sort of prgramme to fight for in such meetings will aim to tackle the central aspects of the Government's attacks: * Restore all cuts. For a programme of useful public works to meet social needs and employ the jobless *Against the incomes policy. Automatic compensation for inflation in wages, state benefits and social expenditure as a whole. Base it on a cost of living index drawn up by the working class.
The standing of independent candidates in Walsall and Stechford against the Labour Party will in no way contribute to a Labour defeat. If those huge majorities are lost it will be as a result of the record of the Labour The same argument is used against a fight-back by the lefts in the Labour Party. They have accepted that a fight which defeated the Government would be their responsibility, not the Government's. So they have tagged along, however grudgingly.
The only responsibility that the lefts will have for the introduction of the most right wing Tory Government since the Second
Housing has been the symbol of Labour