The 1964 election result, narrow as it was, represented a quite remarkable achievement for Labour. It meant that in a relatively prosperous society, with a quarter-century of full employnent behind it, and in circumstances of (very) rslative international peace, the population was calling for change. Tt was a leftward swing. Whilst certainly some votes were won on the call for “uodernisation", which appealed to the middle class managerial types, the result wes also a token of the re~awakened trade union and working class support for Labour. This was a direct result of the wagepauses of Thorneycroft and Lloyd, and the Rookes v. Barnard decision. The left swing was further reflected after the election in the new Parliamentary Labour Farty, and in cabinet appointments. Wilsonism looked for a brief moment like an “opening to the left". Socialists’ dismay at the subsequent furious swing to the right, (orthodox credit squeeze, Buccaneers for South Africa, the incomes policy turning into a wage freeze, 'voluntary' methods turned into anti-strike proposals, the sharp edge of Wilson's and Gunter's tongues reserved for strikers and not profiteers, the thoroughly Conservative nature of foreign policy, the Iwmigration White Paper) has been all the more complete and demoralising. The changes which socialists sought have been checked and diluted under the pressure of the orthodox financial policies decided upon so early in response to the sterling crisis. This is true in the fields of welfare, education, housing. The planning for which the left looked has deteriorated into 4 market-doninated rationalisation of the existing trends ~- in fuel and trans~ port particularly. Change we have had: but principally directed to curbing wages, attacking the basic strength upon which working class economic —- and ultimately political - influence depends. Change in the direction of greater dependence upon, and subservience to, the United States Government and international finance. It was not a socialist journal, but the "Economist", which came out last year with the headline, “Labour Men, Tory Measures". For the moment, this policy is certainly not going to lose Labour the elec~ tion. It is important to understand why this is so. fhabour's strength in working class votes has not yet been alienated by what has happened. Eighteen months is a short time, and working class loyalty to the Labour Party is tenacious: its post-war adherence has been extremely consistent. Meantime, the appeal of the Early Warnings Bill, Immigration policy, Vietnam obedience, and the whole style of the Governwent are coining in the votes of ex-Liberals, and some Tories, fron the middle class, ~ from the right. Tt is very important that the left, in and out of Parliament, and the trade unionists, must be prepared for the likely consequences of this. Tt is sometimes assumed that the Government has been the unwilling prisoner of a small majority and a balance of payments crisis, and that if these restraints are removed they will show thenselves in their true light, as left-wing socialists. But if their majority is enhanced by the present tactics, the Government will have actually strengthened the prison walls. If your electoral superiority depends upon having encouraged right-wing support, you are dependent on it. No voluntary, Cabinet inspired swing to the left can be expected. It_has to be fought for, desperately hard. The fighting has to come from an illusion-free left in Parliament, fron trade unionists at all levels, and from the rank and file in the Party.
The Lessons of Labour continued -
If we enter the new Parliament with a clear understanding of the size and
nature of the task, and recognising the need for the closest contact with
unions such as the five techniciams', and the T&GWU, the political situation
can become much more favourable for the socialist case. For wmion dis
illusionment and labour abstention is bound to grow if the Government
continues its present course, and if we go — ‘this, will make parliamentary
——— really effective.