The North Hull by-election

The intervention of the Radicsl Allinnce in the Hull byekelection poses very sharply the dilemma of the left of the Labour Partye Yet it would be wrong if/Yeacted to this dilemma 2s Richard Gott would have us do, Tony Tophan indicated the real altern-tive in this situntion, that the defect of the Labour Governnent 2+ this stage will not open the way to a more radical Governnent but one that is even morerexctionary than the present one, This is not a case of supporting the lesser evil (for shades of difference are so fine as to be almost negligible) but rather one of assessing possible developmentse The reactionary initiatives of the Labour Government will be exploited by a Tory administretion tenfold if they are returned in a situation where the Labour movement is not only divided but _disorientated. This brings me to what I think is the heart of this dispute, The Radical Alliance is repeating the mistokes that the left has made since 1945. This is, that they choose to fight on a foreign policy question, Richard Gott wrote: "It does not matter much whether steel is nationalised this year or in 1970, it will come eventunlly". Nothing could be more wrong. It is precisely because there has been no move towards an extension of public wnership or workers* control th:t the Labour Government not only does, but nust, pursue its abominable Vietnam policy. The publicction of the so-called "Ne Wstional Plan" makes this abundantly clear, What we are faced with is not sone sort of Labour Government tht hs somehow lost its wey. Rather we are faced with a Government that has consciously chosen to impose reo. capitalist solutions to Britcin's problems, Such a commitment Corr hes with it 2 corollary of commitment to imperialism abroad, »nd specifics ‘ly to the U.S. paynasters, Let me emphasise, it is not a question of stroigntening out Labour's foreign policy “nd then proceeding to socialist measures at home, The exact reverse is the truth of the nattere Lenin once talked cbout the main enemy being 7% home, this is even more true today. The unspeskeble Vietnom policy, the shufflings and convolutions on Rhodegia by Wilson, etc, are the - effects of their comitment to preserving capitalism at home (the cause), Therefore, whilst not for one nonent ceasing to protest »gainst end condemn these policies, the left should at the same tine see thet Vietnam cannot be viewed in isolations It is not merely that the working is not so responsive on foreign policy, but that it is necessary to have a correct order of priorities so that the objectives become obtain- “bles The struggle in Vietnam is our struggle, there en be no dichotony for socialists on this issues However, precisely because it is our struggle it is imperative that we do more than verbally solidarise with it. How we trike action is of crucial importance if we wish to defest imperialisn. I would say that if the Labour Government is to fall it must do so in a way that does not disorient the working class, particularly the left of the Labour movenents It is true thet we should const:ntly point out that Wiisonts "East of Suez" policy imposes a still crippling arns burden on the economy, and support for the U.S. genocidal war in Vietnam is bound up in this. But: it is algo necessary to show that the imposition of an "incomes policy" is a port d thise International solidsrity is more than a moral sentiment, it is a vit-l part of the fight for socialism in Britain, and it is c® thet tasis that the working class will be moved. As Tony Tophan said there are - no short cuts in this struggld, It may assuage our conscierices to follow the Radical Alliance, but will it teach anyone the real lessons of this Labour Government, ieee, the main enemy is ot home? I think note