JOHN Ross writes (8 February) about a move within the National Union of Public Employees to disaffiliate from the Labour Party. He criticises this idea, arguing that it 'would aid Tory influence and infiltration in the union'. But he does not explain how this would happen.
He also claims that it 'would cut NUPE militants off from many of the people whose solidarity is now needed for the public sector strike'. Has comrade Ross not heard of trades councils? If it is necessary to be a member of the Labour Party in order to have contact with other 'militants', then perhaps we should join the Labour Party and dissolve the organisations of the left.
Ross proposes an emergency conference of the Labour Party to repudiate Callaghan's policies and support the public sector workers, which could also 'help initiate the fight in the labour movement for socialist policies and a new leadership'. Rich Palser writes in a similar vein (15 February). He argues for recalling the Labour Party conference to draw up a manifesto 'which offers a socialist alternative to the capitalist crisis'.
Is this not reformist? The Labour Party cannot reform away capitalism. It is futile to attempt to change the Labour Party. If the articles quoted above represent the line of the International Marxist Group, then why does it not enter the Labour Party?
By standing candidates against the Labour Party, the IMG disqualifies its members from joining. Why stand candidates when the idea is to change the Labour Party? The IMG needs to resolve these contradictions in its policies.
PAUL KEGAN (London N5)