Strike tests Labour Party

Scan page 5

The following is an interview with John Ross, a regular contributor to Socialist Action, a socialist newsweekly published by Labour Party supporters in Great Britain. The interview was conducted by Michael Schreiber and Alan Benjamin.

Socialist Action: What is the current status of the British coal miners' strike and how would you assess its significance?

John Ross: Well, the first thing you have to understand is that it's not a strike in any normal sense. It's the biggest trade union struggle in Britain since the general strike in 1926. The bourgeoisie have now spent more money on defeating the strike than they spent on the Malvinas war. From the economic point of view of the bourgeoisie, the struggle is irrational. They've now spent 10 times as much as they needed to meet all of the miners' demands. It's not a struggle they are conducting for economic reasons.

One must bear in mind that in 1972 and 1974 the miners waged struggles which decisively defeated the Heath government. In 1974 they actually brought down the government, forcing general elections which led to the defeat of the government.

The number one thing the Conservative Party did in opposition after 1974 was to prepare a very detailed plan— they set up a special subcommittee for that—on how to confront and defeat a future miners' strike. Since the party's return to the government, it has followed this strategy to the letter. The basic battle plan was to avoid a head-on confrontation with the miners until they had succeeded in defeating other sectors of the working class.

In 1981 the Conservative government made a probe to close the pits. There was an immediate spontaneous reaction from the miners, leading the government to completely reverse its decision within 24 hours. It withdrew its plan for pit closures. So this time [1984 strike] the plan was to pit other groups of workers against the miners and to prepare the relationship of forces within the miners.

Second, the government had to push through a series of anti-trade union laws. In particular it had to prevent what you might call secondary boycotts, thanks to which the miners actually won previous strikes. The miners would put picket lines across the power stations. They closed down the power stations. There would be no electrical power in the country and the government was forced to surrender.

The government therefore passed laws which make it illegal to take any action except at the place of work. It was all perfectly worked out to deal with this. The ruling class estimated when Thatcher was elected for the second time and had carried out this policy that the relationship of forces was favorable.

But the government has made two big miscalculations on the relation of forces so far. The first one was that it didn't believe that Scargill [the president of the miners' union] would succeed in getting all the miners out for the strike.

Dockers close ports As we go to press, British dockworkers have called their second strike in just over a month in solidarity with the miners. The walkout began August 24 when dockers paralyzed ports throughout Scotland as well as London, Liverpool, and Hull. Officials of the Transport and General Workers Union said that the action was in response to the use of scab labor to unload a shipment of coal at the Scottish port of Hunterston. chief demand of the right wing of the Labour Party. This demand is endorsed by Kinnock, the chief of the Labour Party. Kinnock has made many statements condemning the so-called violence by the miners.

The activists of the Labour Party overwhelmingly support the miners-by 85 or 90 percent. In fact, there has been no degree of mobilization of the Labour Party behind a struggle like this in living memory-not since the 1920s. That means that the left wing of the leadership of the Labour Party-people like Tony Benn who is the closest Labour Party ally of Scargill-are totally identified with the strike. They march at the head of its demonstrations. They appeal for money.

This also means that the strike has acquired the character of a tremendous test of strength inside the Labour Party between the right wing and Kinnock, on the one hand, and Scargill and Benn, on the other. It has completely transformed the position of Kinnock. When Kinnock was elected last year, he was elected with an overwhelming vote, probably 80 percent. His credibility has fallen tremen-