Barbara Castles and the Rail Strike

Barbara Cestle is one of those members on the N.i.C. of the Labour Party who still postures as a left-winger and yet, in practice, does some of Wilson's dirtiest work, Her attitude towards the rail strike as Minister of Transport is typical. Having succeeded in getting the National Union of Railwaymen to climb down on the Liner train issue, she now apparently hopes to get them to do the same over the manning of the new terminals. The issue in this strike is very clear: the railwaymen are fighting both to preserve their jobs and to stop a process of creeping denationalisation. The Railway Board want to have the right to make available to private enterprise all the facilities of the new freight depots built by the nationalized concern. They want to do this without regard at all for the effect it will have on the jobs of railwaymen. This is the thanks that the railwaymen get for their co-operation in rationalising the industry. Moreover, this is done without any consultation with men concerned: according to the Sunday Times of June 25. Bowers was present at the meeting of the Eastern Region sectional council in the spring of 1965 when the management informally told the union side that they proposed to allow shipping agents to hire their ow staff to load and unload wagons. Bowers told the management, equally informally, that his men were not interested. Since then the subject has never been formally discussed at local level. The talks moved to national level, where they dragged on fitfully, completely overshadowed by the argument about liner trains. The Railways Board believed that the two cases were complementary... The two cases are different, Bowers explains. "We were arguing about letting private enterprise into liner train terminals," he says, "but we've never argued about that at the new freight terminal. We were willing to have them in, but weren't willing to let them do railwaymen's work." How does this tie in with Barbara Castle's statement in the House of Commons on Tuesday that she had no doubt that the board had done their utmost to meet the legitimate interests of the railwaymen ? Barbara Castle said that the House should send a message stating its intention of having a stable and thriving railway system. Compare this with a story that the railwaymen told the Sunday Times (quoted in same issue). "The men of N U R Branch 128 - the Bethnal Green Branch of which Bowers is secretary - are engagingly anxious not to appear destructive. 'This Serman, very smartly dressed, came to our strike meeting last Tuesday', says Bowers. 'He told us that he had four cases of machinery at Lea Bridge which had to be exhibited at Olympia this week. It would be irrevocable, he told us, if it didn't get there. When we found his story was true we asked for volunteers to move his stuff, and we got them. Then: the German went to ask management if it was all right. Their reply was ‘yes! but they said we could only do this bloke a favour if we first checked on at the new terminal.' " (Thus breaking the strike - P.J.) Certain questions arise out of this affair:(1) can anyone in their right mind continue to believe that by voting for Barbara Castle for the N.&.C. of the Labour Party they are helping the fight for left-wing policies? ; and (2) what happened in the House of Commons to the N U R sponsored M.P.s ? Surely here was a time, above all, when they should have defended their union against a completely unfair and misleading attack ? It is a long time until the October Labour Party conference but this affair should be remembered when the voting takes place.