4

Labor Party crippled by disunity

LONDON — The re-election of the Thatcher Tory
80Vernment in Britain, with a greatly increases majority,
IS certain to be presented as a victory for the forces in
Western Europe most closely aligned with the Reaganite
anti-Soviet policies of nuclear confrontation. It will be
Claimed, furthermore, as a case of popular acceptance of
‘ight-wing domestic policies regardless of how much
t ee ersen unemployment and ravage welfare state

nefits.

On the face of it, this is what the British people have
_ Petpetrated in returning the Tories to power for another
Possible five years, with a majority of over 140 parlia-
_ Mentary seats. This is nearly three times the lead they
obtained in the election of 1979 which first put Margaret
‘atcher in the prime ministership. It would appear to be
aheavy repudiation of the Labor Party and its program
that centered on jobs, peace and disarmament, and pro-
lection of the welfare state.
Like the earlier victory of the right wing Christian
Mocrats in the Federal Republic of Germany, the
Tesults of the British election, and the reasons for them,
Cannot be explained so simplistically. For Labor it may
ave been an electoral disaster, the worst in postwar
Bo. but for the Tories the triumph is less than clear

Although the Tories gained many seats, this was not
be to any significant shift of pouplar support in their
vor. The Tory share of the vote actually declined in
©OMmparison with 1979, by as much as two percent.
hatcher had aimed at getting more than 50 per cent of

the vote, to obtain the ‘‘mandate’’ she said she needed
Or her policies; the Tories were elected with barely 43
ir oT ‘of the votes, down from nearly 45 per cent in

Third Party Role

Tory gains from Labor were due more than anything
else to the third party factor, the Liberal-Social Demo-
‘atic Alliance. In almost every case the votes the Social
~*mocratic Party (SDP) in particular took from Labor
€qualled the margin of Tory votes over Labor.

There is every reason to believe that the SDP, made up
of Night-wing defectors from the Labor Party, was con-
C0cted in big business circles over two years ago as a
device for wrecking the chances of a Labor Party com-

Pee

mitted to an increasingly left-wing program to be re-
turned to power in this year’s election. The SDP made
more certain fulfilling this task by forming an Alliance
with the long-established Liberal Party.

A total of 23 right-wing Labor MPs had defected to
form an SDP parliamentary group, headed by what was
known as the Gang of Four (Roy Jenkins, Shirley Wil-
liams, David Owen and Bill Rodgers). They received a
massive build-up in the media, which created an impres-
sion that the Alliance would win so many seats that it

would replace Labor as the main opposition party and

would even win the election overall.

- Spoilers Defeated

In the election, however, the SDP was nearly wiped
out, retaining only five of its seats, while two of the Gang
of Four (Shirley Williams and Bill Rodgers) were de-
feated. This was largely due to the anger of Labor voters
against what were seen as renegades. But the SDP ful-
filled its spoiling role, taking just enough votes to let in
Tories.

British ruling groups had other knives up their sleeves
for stabbing Labor. One of these was a hyped up use of
opinion polls, which were heavily weighted to show big
support for the Tories, mounting support for the Alli-
ance, and declining Labor backing. Over 50 opinion polls
were published, almost daily, during the four-week elec-
tion campaign. They dominated the campaign, to the
near-exclusion of issues, and were aimed mainly at the
floating vote of about 25 per cent of the electorate. This
created a bandwagon mentality and a belief that a vote
for Labor would be wasted. This was the worst abuse of
opinion polls, bringing many to conclude that they
should be banned during the election campaigns.

Smear Campaign

Another right-wing instrument against Labor was the
British press. Only one daily newspaper (outside of the
Communist Morning Star) is pro-Labor (the tabloid Mir-
ror) and that from a right-wing standpoint. An un-
precedented smear campaign against Labor was used,
picturing the party and its program as controlled by
irresponsible left-wing extremists. At the same time
Labor’s elderly leader, Michael Foot, was depicted as

little more than a shambling loony. Tory propaganda

Thatcher triumph less than clear cu

London tye?

William ‘3

(contracted out to a big commercial advertising agency, -
Satchi and Satchi) duplicated these lines.

These problems might have been overcome, but
Labor was crippled by something worse — disunity of its
left and right wings. Throughout the past Tory term of
office, the struggle of the two wings took place publically
over policies and leading posts. The right-wing press
seized upon the dispute to make the Labor Party look
hopelessly divided and unfit to govern. Just before the
election the divisions were patched up and a manifesto
program put forward that was mainly written by the left.

Right-wing Sabotage ~

If put squarely and firmly to the electorate, the Labor
program may well have won the election, especially the
issue of non-installation of the U.S. Cruise missiles and
abandonment of nuclear weapons. However, Labor
right wingers like former Premier James Callaghan and
Deputy Leader Denis Healy sabotaged the program.
Callaghan defended Cruise missiles and nuclear weapons
outright; Healey supported retention of the Polaris Nu-
clear Missile. The Labor Party was made to appear
hopelessly divided and muddled on the issue and had to
drop it. The Tories and the Alliance made hay over the
Labor confusion.

Many were also confused by contradictory positions
on economic alternatives taken by right and left Labor
candidates.

Among the losses suffered by Labor were the seats of
Tony Benn and several other leading left wingers (Albert
Booth, Stan Newens, Joan Lestor). A new Labor
leadership will undoubtedly emerge with the probable
retirement of the 70-year-old Michael Foot. The main
contest is likely to be between the Center-left Neil Kin-
nock and the center-right Roy Hattersley. It will take a
bit of time to reorganize a fighting opposition.

—

International Focus

Tom Morris

- Two students,
two leaders...

Ten year old Samantha
Smith from Manchester,

aine and 17 year-old Ariele

Toss from Princeton, New

€rsey have something. in
-COmmon.

Both are students and deep-
ly concerned about their future
threatened by world nuclear
War. This alone does not make

amantha or Ariele unique
— But both have done some-
thing special.
ast winter Samantha wrote
4 letter to Soviet premier Yuri
Ndropov expressing her con-
Cerns and asking for a reply.
Last week Ariele spoke with
Onald Reagan about her
fears,
Andropov sent a letter to
Mith in which he expressed
© Soviet people’s deep desire
Or peace. He told her about
the sacrifices made in World
War Two and of the USSR’s
Wish to improve relations with
€r country.
He told Samantha of the
+0viet Union’s proposals to
_ Curb nuclear arms and wrote:
_ that is why the USSR de-
Clared to the world it will

Never, but never, be the first to’

Use the nuclear weapons
@gainst any country.”
€ invited Samantha and

wil

Samantha Smith writes to Yuri
Andropov.

her parents to visit the USSR
and see for themselves what
Soviets think. They will travel
there this summer.

we SO

Ariele Gross spoke with
Reagan in the Oval office early
this month about her hopes for
anuclear weapons’ freeze. She
called the 20 minute chat
‘terrifying’.

Gross brought a letter from
14 other students asking
Reagan to work for “‘a mutual
and verifiable’’ nuclear
weapons’ freeze and then lis-
tened to his views in which ‘*he
believes building arms 1s a way
to reducing them’’. a

She asked Reagan what
would happen if the U.S. of-
fered the Soviets a nuclear

weapons’ freeze. ‘‘He said the —

Soviets offered the first freeze.

“T said, ‘Well, that’s terrific.
Then we'll have a mutual
freeze. What’s wrong with
that?’”’

Gross said Reagan replied:
“There must be something
wrong with a freeze if the
Soviets want it.”

“If we keep on that way I
won’t have a future,’ Gross
told reporters.

How Soviet kids
see Canada

Soviet journalist Mikhail
Derevyanko asked some ninth
graders at the No. 89 school in
Moscow’s Voroshilov district
what they knew about Canada.

Svetlana Bushnikova, 16:
‘*Like the USSR, Canada has a
vast territory and is rich in
forests. Maybe that’s why
there is a maple leaf on its flag.
Or perhaps it’s a symbol of

- their peaceful nature and to

them the maple leaf is the same
as the olive branch was to an-

cient Greeks ...”’

Dima Novikov, 16: I love the
way Canadians play hockey
and believe their hockey is one
of the strongest in the world.
Although they play rather ag-
gressively, they have superb
technique. That’s why it’s

such an honor to win a match
against them...”

Olga Kalinovskaya, 15: |
know that like in Finland they
have two state languages in
Canada. I don’t envy their stu-
dents who must study two lan-
guages simultaneously. and a
foreign language on top of that

Andrei Korolyoy, 15: “I’m a
pop music fan and think if
Canadian singers and musi-
cians came to the USSR more
often they would be no less
popular than the Boney M
from West Germany or New
Seekers from England ...”

eo Re ok

Perhaps if Trudeau’s chil-

_dren were to chat to these and

other Soviet children about
their lives, dreams and hopes,
the Prime Minister would be
less inclined to aid and abet in
their destruction.

Sharks in -
the Caribbean

As rip-off artists par excel-
lence, Canadian banks don’t
confine themselves nearly to
picking this country’s pockets,
although they do a fine job at
that as 1983 first quarter profits
show.

Here’s what the Jamaican
people see, as reported in the
May issue of Struggle, news-

paper of the Jamaica Workers
Party:

“Nine biggest banks (seven
of which are foreign con-
trolled) had pre-tax profits of
$80-million last year, a massive
increase of 125% over 1982.

‘‘The lion’s share of the big
banker profits went to the
Royal Bank and Bank of Nova
Scotia which together are 55%
of the total net worth ofall nine
banks ... This same year over
90% of the workers and 84% of
farmers earn under $50 per
week; one out of three youths
and two out of three women
are unemployed.

‘While the rich get richer,
unemployment rose to 292,300
and is expected to reach
323,800 by October, 1983.”’

Jamaica has 2.3 million
people. Some idea of what the
Royal and Nova Scotia are
participating in can be seen in
two immediate comparisons:

‘ Canada has 178 doctors per

100,000 population, Jamaica
has 28. Canada’s infant mortal-
ity per 1,000 live births is 12.4,
Jamaica’s is 20.4.

In 1980, Struggle reports,
70% of Jamaica’s working
population earned 21% of the
national income while the top
5% earned 30%.

Let’s hear it for Canadian
banks.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—JULY 1, 1983—Page 9