Labour party conference in Scarborough arrived there with high expectations that the right wing would be defeated on several important policy issues.
From what took place, however, it is clear that victory for the left will neither be as easy nor as automatic as some may have liked.
Not that the left's hopes were unfounded. A glance at the resolutions shows a deep hostility to the government's course of action. Even resolutions from the loyalist sections of the party, which supported the incomes policy for instance, found that they had to hedge their bets and criticize the government because of its failure to keep down prices.
On the first day, the debate was on health, education and welfare and it did not provide any real test to gauge the strength of the left. At one point the conference was thrown into an uproar when John Boyd of the AEU [Amalgamated Engineering Union], newly elected party chairman, refused to call a card vote when requested. (In the bloc voting, a raised hand can represent 1,000 votes or 1,000,000 depending on whether it belongs to a constituency delegate or a tradeunion leader. )
"Is this Boyd's law?" a delegate enquired, referring to an incident at the TUC where AEU president William Carron had bureaucratically voted the union bloc over the objections of a number of AEU delegates. Carron had cynically referred to his ruling as "Carron's law."
But the two central issues before the conference were the Labour government's continued support for Washington's policies in Vietnam and the Prices and Incomes Policy.
So far as Vietnam is concerned, the Wilson government suffered a rebuke. On the Incomes Policy, it was a different matter.
The main debate took place on five composite resolutions: two supported the government although one of these called for control of prices, rents and dividends (and the NEC [National Executive Committee] asked that it be remitted); two were critical of the government; and one called for a £15 minimum wage.
Speaker after speaker complained about the loss of Labour party support caused by the Incomes Policy. Moving the composite which the NEC found acceptable, even a loyalist, Raymond Bellchambers Buckley CLP [Labour party constituency], stated that it had been unfair.
The people were prepared to wait for things to work themselves out, he said, but "we can't wait indefinitely. There has been a rash of rent increases and, while people might find it difficult to understand the complexities of sterling, nevertheless they see prices going up."
Doreen Bellerby, the seconder, to eries of "Hear! Hear!" from the delegates, added her grievances too: "We are exceedingly unhappy," she said, that "rents went up almost immediately after the announcement of the wage restraint" and that "the government did nothing when local authorities put up rents affecting lower paid workers."
The first left speaker was Dan McGarvery of the Boilermakers, the union sponsoring one of the critical composites calling for an end to the Incomes Policy. He asked, doesn't the leadership understand what is happening? The employers organizations, the Confederation of British Industries, want to defeat the government -- their purpose is to demoralize the supporters of the party. "What we want from this government, this great party of ours, is an acceptance," he went on, "that they are on the road to ruin and destruction, abetted by Callaghan (Chancellor of the Exchequer]."
The argument that the government is taking unpopular decisions for the long-term good of the country is "so much eyewash." You have tried the policy and failed, McGarvery said, "have courage to say you are sowing the seeds of your own destruction." :
Brian Bolton, seconding the Boilermakers composite, argued that the government "seems to think we already have a socialist economy." "We are opposed to a Prices and Incomes Policy under capitalism," he said, "and will only accept it when Clause 4 of the party's constitution (calling for the nationalization of industry] is implemented."
A great mass of incomes are uncontrolled, he went on, and only some can be controlled. The capitalists' incomes are not controlled because they.don't make the products. That's why the CBI [Confederation of British Industries], he said, gives solid support to the Labour government.
Speaking on the composite which called for a £15 minimum wage, a delegate from Blackpool CLP gave a picture of conditions in Britain for the great mass of workers. "Nine million, one hundred and twenty-five thousand earn less than £10 a week," he said. "Hotel, catering and shopworkers are being used as cheap labour. It's a bit of a national joke that you can receive more money on unemployment insurance than when working.”
Clive Jenkins of ASSET [Association of Supervisory Staffs, Executives and Technicians], moving the composite that approximated the TUC position -- abandonment of deflationary policies and a reduction of arms expenditures -- stated that any debate on Prices and Incomes Policy was a "debate about what the party is about, democracy, equality and the right to work."
He pointed to the catastrophic effects of government policy upon Londonderry where one-third of all employable workers are out of work. As far as he was concerned, it was a question of basic standards because the poor are always the first victims of any freeze yet today share prices are at their highest on the stock market.
Jenkins charged that the government's present policy dictated that there must be a pool of unemployed. The economic measures had been bad for the people and also incompetent, since we still have stagnation, unemployment and an unstable balance of payments.
"We should say that the present level of unemployment is unacceptable and that the present level is intolerable. We must have a change in strategy and not a situation where a man's work hangs by the unseeable thread of the monthly trade figures."
Jenkins said the heart of the problem is that the country has been spending overseas £150 million a year for over a decade on defence. This had escalated to a £500 million balance of payments deficit and yet £100 million is spent on one Polaris submarine. "The government has always gone for the soft options. The tough decision would be to take on the bankers."
T.J.Smith of SOGAT [Society of Graphical and Allied Trades], seconded the motion. Many of us experienced unemployment in the thirties, he stated, "with the utter dejection, despair and hopelessness that it produces." "If the Tories had pursued the same policies as this government, there would be today a big opposition..."
"You can't feed a family on speeches," he said. "If the government had attacked the capitalists instead of the friends of the party, they would have a lot more sup-
port and confidence." He called for an end to the wage restraint.
Other speakers defended the government. Most typical was John Orford, assistant general secretary of the National Union of Vehicle Builders. "There seems to be a tendency to blame the government for our difficulties," he said, "but do we need to remind you that the country was on the point of collapse?" (Did he think a Labour government would come into office under any other circunstances? a left-winger quipped.)
"It's no time to throw away all we've gained," Orford continued, "even if progress has been slower than anticipated. The people below the poverty line have been with us for many years, no one can blame the government for that."
Yes, he agreed, wages for some workers were too low, but would this be altered by leaving others to get what they can? "It is only through the government policies of restraint that we as trade unionists can look after our own."
Already at this point in the con-ference, it had become apparent that the right wing had won the day. They, on the whole, were far more assertive and aggressive and they charged that there were no alternative policies to theirs.
The left let the right wing off with the most flagrant dictatorial actions. When the chairman refused to put Composite 34 on the floor, calling for the nationalization of Britain's 360 monopolies and advocating other socialist measures, this was not challenged. It was left to the movers of the composite, Liverpool, West Derby CLP, to make their lonely protest. (The advocates of Compos-— ite 34 are supporters of the English Militant. )
The two remaining major left-wing speakers were Michael Foot, MP for Ebbw Vale, and Frank Cousins of the Transport and General Workers Union. Foot pointed out that Callaghan had stated in the Commons on more than one occasion that he would not use the "sledgehammer of deflation," yet, this was what he had done. The use of unemployment as a weapon of economic policy had been fought by the labour movement throughout its entire history.
Stating that there had been many recessions and the country had come out of them, to roars of laughter he conmmented, "If we get out of this recession, no doubt the Prime Minister and others will tell us that it is the greatest economic miracle since the loaves and the fishes."
Cousins continued on the same theme: Can the country afford an incomes policy? he asked. "My answer is no -- because the incomes policy has been related to deliberate action on the part of the government to create a degree of unemployment." Using deflationary methods is good politics for the Tories. "It can never be good politics for us because we will not allow it." He was the last speaker from the floor.
In the voting, the two progovernment composites carried. One, recording continued support for the government, got 3,213,000 to 3,091,000 votes; and the other got 2,657,000 to 2,461,000. The ASSET composite was defeated by 3,997,000 to 2,324,000 votes; the Boilermakers motion was rejected by 3,860,000 to 2,535,000. The composite on the minimum wage also went down.
THE