Lefts Must Fight Now Sack Wilson to Defend Jobs

Scan page 1

Wilson and his backers, including almost every trade union leader and the vast majority of the Labour 'left' argue that the only way to avoid mass unemployment is to accept the state pay laws of the Labour Government. Determined to defend capitalism at all costs they push this line deliberately in order to sow confusion in the ranks of the Selling state pay laws: Foot and Williams on platform with Wilson and Week struggle. The defenders of capitalism working class.

An essential part of Wilson's platform in this fight is former 'left' Michael Foot, now leading defender of the pay laws on platforms with Wilson. Wedgwood Benn, too, has dropped the 'left' •facadé and called on workers to "sustain and maintain" the Gov= ernment. Both 'left' and right then unite in support of the pay They go on treacherously to argue that the pay laws are a volut tary accepted scheme with legal backing. In other words, the law is being used to enforce the wage-cutting policy adopted by the TUC leaders.

These people know that the only way workers can defend their living standards against present-day inflation is by coming into conflict with capitalism. The will go to any lengths to prevent this.

The WSL warns, contrary to the lies of Wilson and his backers: to accept the £6 pay limit is precisely to accept high levels of permanent unemployment.

The reasons for this are clear. A cut in the spending power of th working class, imposed by the pay laws, creates unemployment by cutting their ability to buy consumer goods.

SPENDING CUTS

But today there is more at stake: the acceptance of the pay laws would be the decisive step towards the acceptance of the other side of the Labour Government's attack - cuts in governmen spending.

These cuts, which began in Healey's last budget are continuing today. Despite Wilson's assurances they are about to be massively stepped up, creating huge numbers of unemployed.

The full implications of these measures must be understood in the workers movement.

In the Post Office alone, for example, it is proposed that services, such as the second post in rural areas and Sunday collection be abolished, along with cuts in Saturday Post Office opening hours. This will go along with a reduced volume of work caused by the staggering increase in charges, and lead to immediate redundancies. An expected 50% redundancy among postmen in rural areas gives an idea of the scale of this attack.

At the same time the trebling of telenhone charges in less than a year; resulting in a drop in the use of the service has lead to the centralisation of exchanges at offpeak times and lay-offs among g operating staff. All this in the name of "cutting costs"

This example shows that it is not a question of wage increase! pushing up prices (what post offic worker's wages have trebled in a year?) but of cuta in government subsidies deliberately driving up prices, and services being cut in orderto cut the labour force. The creation of unemployment in this way is a central part of the Labour Government's offensive against the working class - and this from a starting point of 1 million unemployed.

This exposes the lie of Healey's threat to workers - . made, ironically, at a Tolpuddle Martyrs memorial rally - that if the pay laws did not work and reduce living standards it would mean "two or three million on the dole for years" . This is precisely the fate in store for workers if they do accept the pay DEMANNING Spending cuts and demanning are taking place in every sector. In Birmingham eleven new schools have been cancelled. In the Healt! Service cash shortages have slashed the building programme and are forcing the closure of hospitals. On the railways, services are to be reduced and the labour force cut, while in the British Steel Corporation the threat of 20,000 redundancies has been revived to railroad through speed-up and demanning and pave the way for a cut in steel production.

We say that the fight to defend the right to work under these conditions is a political fight. The starting point of the struggle against unemployment is to s oppose the pay laws of the Labour Government, and mobilise to defeat them.

The demand must be fought for to remove Wilson and the right wing, and replace them with people who will defend the living standards of the working class.

At a time when this stand is needed, the decision of the NUM Executive (built on Scargill's retreat from the £100 demand at the Scarborough Conference) not only to accept the pay laws, but to ballot the membership on it, is a straight betrayal. It cynically uses the authority of the last two wage struggles, won by the determination of the rank and file, to win a 'yes' vote, as a conscious move to protect Wilson and the right wing.

A main point of government propaganda used by right and "left' is that inflation is the main enemy, and must be "beaten"

We say that our programme the protection of wages by a sliding scale keeping pace with inflation; the protection of jobs through work-sharing on full pay; the opening of the books of the employers to establish the case for nationalisation under workers management of firms unable to sustain their workforce, and a programme of public works for such firms to keep production going - is an inflatio nary programme. But it is the only way to defend jobs and living standards.

It is not inflation which is the main enemy, but capitalism The capitalist system itself causes inflation, and we cannot accept that the working class are responsible for inflation. Nor do we accept workers should pay for it.

Inflation can only be ended by the ending of capitalism itself and the establishment of a socialist economy under nationalised property relations.

But to achieve this, the working class must defend the living standards it has won in years of In carrying out the job for the employers, Wilson gets of course the enthusiastic support of every sector of the capitalist press. The defence of extreme right-winger, Prentice, and the unprecedented witch-hunting of those who have correctly moved his removal in Newham is a part of this;

know that if Prentice is removed it will be a blow against the rulcontinued on back page, col.s