PAUL ANDERSON

The poll tax is unfair, uncollectable and universally unpopular and it is not surprising that the Tories want to put it behind them. They had been hoping, however, to do so in a leisurely fashion after winning an autumn election this year. Instead, the election was postponed in the face of opinion polls showing that the Tories would not win – and Michael Heseltine was made to bring forward the council tax legislation. The council tax bill will be rushed through parliament in time to give the Tories the option of calling the election before next year’s poll tax bills, which are certain to be mas­sive because of the level of non-payment, drop on to the nation’s doormats. With this in mind, the government has allowed the bare minimum of parliamentary time for scrutiny of the legislation.

The upshot is that we will be lumbered with a local government tax which, if marginally less regressive than the poll tax, is almost as unfair and just as un­workable. The council tax valuation process is laugh­ably arbitrary and appeals against valuation decisions will overload any conceivable system. The discount for single-person households is virtually an invitation to tax avoidance. And the retention of draconian central government capping powers makes a mockery of the principle of local accountability. Add the patent unfair­ness of the banding structure, which means that a fami­ly in a suburban semi will pay the same as one in a country mansion, and the council tax has all the makings of a disaster. A return to the rates with an improved rebate system, as Labour has advocated, would have been simpler, fairer and above all infinitely more practicable.

The Conservative Party has never been averse to us­ing race to win elections: since the fifties, it has con­sistently stood as the party that is “toughest on im­migration” and most insistent that minority ethnic groans conform to the “British way of life”. The Asylum Bill, as mean-minded a piece of legislation as any put forward under Margaret Thatcher, is entirely consis­tent with the Tory record. So too is the slimy treatment meted out to Ashok Kumar by the Tories in the Langbaurgh by-election last week. However much Chris Pat­ten and John Major deny it, the Tories are playing the race card in the run-up to the general election.

That, however, is only the start of the problem. If a significant proportion of voters were not themselves racist, there would be no point in the Tories, or anyone else, trying to grab votes by playing up race issues. It is quite right for Labour to deplore the Tories’ tactics, but it would be far better for the party to spend a little more time and energy developing long-term policies to combat the racism endemic in British society. A Black Socialist Society within the party and pledges to tight­en up the law on racial discrimination are not enough.

Yet many Labour politicians felt that they simply had to get on with him. From 1984, he was the megalomaniac hands-on proprietor of the Daily Mirror and its Sunday and Scottish sister papers – and the Mirror, Britain’s second most-popular newspaper, was Labour’s only friend on Fleet Street. The  politicians believed that Maxwell, accountable to no one, could make or break Labour and they acted accordingly: they crawled.

How far this affected Labour policy is arguable. But Labour would certainly have moved to the right dur­ing the eighties more slowly without the weight of Maxwell pulling it in that direction. And some felt that the influence of his uncritical enthusiasm for Israel on Labour’s Middle East policy was considerable.

Labour is now watching nervously as the fate of Mir­ror Group Newspapers, 51 per cent of which is owned by the Maxwell family, is decided. The assumption is that Ian Maxwell, the deputy chairman until his fa­ther’s death, will continue the newspapers’ backing for Labour, but no one is sure. There is even speculation that the Maxwell empire’s debt problems will force the sale of the family’s share, perhaps to a Tory press baron, thus eliminating support for Labour from the popular press. This very possibility should stiffen Labour resolve to legislate to ensure press pluralism as soon as it comes to office.

The enthusiasm for Europe currently being shown by Labour stops well short of embracing the creation of a democratic federal European government, either chosen by direct election of a president or drawn from the European Parliament by a prime minister who is also an MEP.

The reasons for this are multiple. In the short term, there is no doubt that Labour’s position is a simple matter of electoral opportunism: avoiding an explicit commitment to democratic European government avoids a damaging split in the party and does not frighten those of the party’s older supporters who dis­like foreigners and believe that Britannia still rules the waves.

At a deeper level, Labour’s leaders are all politi­cians who decided to make Westminster the focus of their political careers in the belief that the government of Britain was what really mattered. They are ill at ease with Europe and know that embracing the goal of democratic European federal government would amount to an admission that they were wrong – some­thing politicians hate doing. Far better for them to pre­tend that an ill-defined greater role for the Council of Ministers and other ministerial forums, along with a small increase in the powers of the European Parlia­ment, would suffice to keep the EC democratically ac­countable after economic and political union.

In reality, Labour’s current proposals involve en­dorsement of plans to give more power to Brussels bu­reaucrats with only the scantest thought about how to make them more answerable to the people whose lives their decisions will affect. They are wholly inadequate if Labour really means to “democratise” the EC. If its rhetoric is to be taken seriously, sooner or later Labour will have to come out in favour of a democratically ac­countable federal European government.

Labour has welcomed the draft treaty on European monetary union tabled by the Dutch presidency of the European Community this week, although it is rightly scornful of the ridiculous “get-out” clause in­cluded only to help John Major avoid a massive schism in the Tory Party. Labour believes that many of the points it has been arguing for have been taken on board by the Dutch – most of all, an enhanced role for Ecofin, the European Council of Finance Ministers, in overseeing the workings of the planned European cen­tral bank, particularly in determining exchange rate policy.

Tribune shares Labour’s enthusiasm for a single Eu­ropean currency. Much detail remains to be sorted out, and the transition period in the run-up to Euro­pean monetary union will be difficult for a British economy weakened by more than a decade of Tory mismanagement. But there is no alternative: the era in which medium-sized nation states had the ability to exercise a substantial measure of control over their economies is long since past, and the creation of a sin­gle European currency is a precondition for the EC be­ing able effectively to fill the economic policy gap.

Labour is also right to argue that the European cen­tral bank must be made politically accountable. Its role will be far too important to be left to the Euro­pean equivalent of Treasury bureaucrats. But Labour’s position does not go anywhere near for enough.

Giving increased powers of oversight over the central bank to the EC’s finance ministers is better than nothing, but it is not as good as giving those powers to a select com­mittee drawn either from the national parliaments of the EC or, better still, from the European Parliament. The European Parliament is directly elected in EC-wide elections, and is the nearest thing we have to a democratically representative EC institution. There is no reason that it should not oversee the European central bank just as the United States Congress oversees the Federal Reserve.

No one in the Labour Party wants anything like those defeats to happen again, and it is reasonable for Labour nationally to do what it can to minimise the risk of by-election embarrassment. Regrettably, but un­avoidably given the vulnerability to hostile media cov­erage of Labour candidates, that includes the national party intervening in the local selection procedure to ensure that candidates can withstand the inevitable heat during the campaign – even in seats in which the proverbial donkey wearing a Labour rosette would have no difficulty in a general election. Hemsworth might be one of the safest Labour seats in the country, but then so were Glasgow Govan and Bermondsey.

That does not, however, excuse the heavy-handed way in which the National Executive Committee panel dealt last week with the selection for the November 7 by-election in Hemsworth in Yorkshire. Ken Capstick, the vice-chair of the National Union of Mineworkers  Yorkshire area, had been nominated by half the con­stituency’s branches and most of its affiliated unions. Hemsworth is a mining constituency and Mr Capstick is, from all accounts, a decent man and a popular local figure. He is on the left and perhaps a little unenthusiastic about certain elements of current Labour policy; but he is by no means a wild-eyed Trotskyist, and it is no crime to have views at variance with party policy – just about everyone does on something or other. It is difficult to see how his selection could possibly have prejudiced Labour’s chances in either Hemsworth or Langbaurgh, the Tory-held marginal which also has a by-election on November 7 and which Ashok Kumar should win for Labour.

In short, on almost any grounds Mr Capstick would seem to be an acceptable candidate. Yet the NEC panel decided to remove his name from the shortlist and, when the constituency party refused to make a selec­tion from a shortlist that did not include him, simply imposed Derek Enright as the Labour candidate.

The Hemsworth party is up in arms, and it has good reason to be, although not because the NEC committee decision has somehow deprived the NUM of a god-giv­en right to choose whomsoever it wants to sit for Hemsworth. One of the main advantages of an electoral system based on single-member constituencies is sup­posed to be that MPs are first and foremost representa­tives of a local community rather than mere parliamen­tary lobby fodder. For this reason, local parties should have the major say in selecting parliamentary candi­dates. In Hemsworth that did not happen.

Mr Enright is a good candidate and will no doubt get full support from the Hemsworth party as soon as the campaign gets into swing; he will undoubtedly retain the seat for Labour. But Mr Capstick was the members’ choice. At very least, the members deserve an explana­tion of why he was deemed unsuitable: the criteria used by the NEC panel in judging by-election candi­dates should immediately be made public. In the longer term, the Hemsworth selection debacle should force Labour into a serious reconsideration of its procedures for by-election candidate selections.

They are unlikely to succeed. Perhaps the Tories do not intend to float hospitals on the stock market. But their record of starving the NHS of resources suggests that they are quite happy to see it turned into a safety – net service used only by those who cannot afford to go private: in that sense, Labour has been quite right to accuse them of wishing to privatise health care. Equal­ly important, their current programme of introducing market forces into the NHS shows that they are more worried about the cost of the service to the taxpayer than its quality to the patient. Even if that is not, strictly speaking, privatisation (though it could all too easily be a prelude to it), it is commercialisation, an in­troduction of the ethics of private enterprise to a sphere in which most voters do not wish to see them.

The NHS is a potential election – winning issue for Labour: the party should shun the advice of those now suggesting that it should let up in its assault. But it will not be enough simply to attack the Tories. In the peri­od between now and the election, Labour must make its positive alternatives to Tory policies on the NHS much clearer and much more detailed.

Two events in the past fortnight have illustrated perfectly how little John Major’s 11 months in office have changed Tory policy on the railways.

First, Malcolm Rifkind announced last week that the high-speed rail link from the Channel Tunnel to Lon­don would not, after all, pass through Tory south- east London but would instead be diverted through Labour east London. The change means that the completion date for the line, already laughably distant by conti­nental standards, is put off to 2002 at the earliest — four years after the tunnel opens. British Rail, its plans in tatters, was understandably outraged.

Then, this week, BR announced fare increases of roughly double the rate of inflation (except, that is, on routes which Mr Major believes offer a poor service, in­cluding that from King’s Cross to his own constituen­cy). The reason is simple. The government, alone in Europe, wants to privatise the railway system and, alone in Europe, is reducing its subsidies while BR, its revenue hit by recession, does not want to cut its in­vestment programme. BR’s only option is to increase fares. The increase will drive more and more passen­gers into using the private motor car – leading to more pollution, more traffic jams and, unless there is a change of government, more fare increases next year.

But the fact remains that Labour conference did de­cide last week to advocate cutting British defence spending to the west European average, and it is per­fectly reasonable to ask how the Labour leadership can dismiss that decision in such a cavalier fashion. After all, it is perfectly happy to accept the legitimacy of con­ference decisions when they go its way, however am­biguously worded the motions. If conference decisions are acceptable only when they are in tune with leader­ship thinking, the notion that conference is there to de­cide policy becomes meaningless.

Labour’s leaders must learn that they have to take the rough with the smooth. If they are worried about the ambiguity of the motion, they should be looking at ways of ironing out the ambiguity, not announcing that they will ignore the conference vote when drawing up the manifesto.

If there is an alternative to the pro-austerity Euro-social-democracy currently advocated by Labour, it is not the package on offer from the group of left-wing economists, trade unionists and politicians which was advertised in Tribune a fortnight ago and is en­dorsed by Ken Livingstone this week.

Much of what they say is unexceptionable: on training, low pay, defence diversification and international economic co-operation, the differences with Labour policy are of degree rather than of kind. Where they part company is in advocating devaluation, exchange controls and nationalisation – the meat and potatoes of the Alternative Economic Strategy of the seventies minus the import controls.

The problems with all this are multiple, but the most important is that there is no reason to believe that an essentially national economic programme can possibly work for a medium-sized country in the modern world. Capital is increasingly mobile and the main effect of Britain attempting to carry out a national alternative economic strategy would simply be to scare it away.

Instead of putting forward a nostalgic vision of plucky little socialist Britain standing alone, possibly outside the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System, the left should be exploring the pos­sibilities for European alternative economic strategies. The fact that this task is more demanding intellectual­ly than recycling yesterday’s panaceas is no reason to shirk it.

This is the first issue of Tribune to be produced entirely on desktop publishing equipment. Our thanks to everyone who made it possible by giving generously to our appeal. Tribune will be back to 12 pages a week just as soon as we have mastered the new kit – which should be before the end of the year.

This week’s Labour Party conference in Brighton has been the least fractious ever. The Labour leadership is keen to show itself not just fit for government bat ready for it, and delegates have willingly buried differ­ences in the interests of giving the impression of party unity in the run-up to the election, which until Monday night many expected to happen as soon as November. Everyone in Brighton knows that Labour stands a very good chance of winning; and everyone knows that the implications of losing are too horrible to contemplate. No one wants to rock the boat. And if the result is a rather boring conference, with rows of empty chairs except when a frontbench spokesman or spokeswoman is giving a keynote speech, so be it.

But although party unity is a necessary condition for winning elections, it is not in itself sufficient. At the beginning of the week, the challenge facing Labour was not just that of projecting an image of unity: it also had to advance a coherent and attractive vision of the future for Britain under a Labour government The party needed to put behind it the jibes that it no longer stood for anything, that it was unnecessarily timid, that it wasn’t really very different from the Tory Party.

So how has Labour shaped up? On the whole, not badly. This week has seen the party making a determined effort to emphasise its differences with the Conservatives on the welfare state, on education and training, on industrial policy and, most notably, on Europe. The message in speech after speech, but particularly in Neil Kinnock’s address to conference on Tuesday, has been that Labour is a mainstream European social-democratic party that will bring Britain into line with the rest of Europe on everything from the minimum wage to environmental protection.

There is still plenty to do, however. Labour’s enthu­siasm for Europe remains short of detail or fudged on several key points. The party still gives the impression of timidity in certain areas, particularly after George Bush’s announcement last week of sweeping cuts nuclear arms, defence policy. Labour is also going to have to handle Tory attacks on its taxation proposals rather more convincingly than it has done this week. Neverthe­less, the party can afford to feel a little pleased with itself. If it can keep up its momentum, Mr Kinnock should be inside Number Ten within nine months.

Tribune does not oppose the suspension pending investigation of alleged membership of the Militant Tendency of Dave Nellist and Terry Fields. Militant is a conspiratorial revolutionary party with its own disci­pline and programme which has stood candidates against Labour and plans to do so again in the general election. Membership of Militant is incompatible with Labour Party membership. If there is a prima facie case for believing the two MPs are Militant members they should be investigated and, if found guilty, expelled. Whether or not either is a good bloke or a fine constituency MP is wholly beside the point.

The process of investigation must, however, be fair and seen to be fair. In particular, given that a November election is no longer on the cards, nothing must be done to find alternative Labour candidates for the two men’s seats unless and until the National Constitutional Com­mittee comes to the conclusion that they are indeed guilty as charged.

There is an air of unreality about the Labour Party’s deliberations on electoral reform, which looks set to be the most controversial policy topic at the party’s annual conference in Brighton next week.

Everyone knows that Labour’s prime task is to win the next election under the existing first-past-the-post system; and everyone knows that it is unlikely that supporters of change will convince conference to back anything more specific, at least for the House of Commons, than keeping all options open, except for ruling out the multi-member constituency, single transferable vote system favoured by the Liberal Democrats.

That, in a nutshell, is the position taken in July by the interim report of the Labour Party’s commission on electoral reform chaired by Raymond Plant, and it is the only one that will preserve party unity. This does not mean, however, that Labour Party members need not bother to work out what they think. Keeping options open is a temporary measure: soon after the election, however Britain votes, Labour will be forced to make up its mind.

Plant laid down a series of criteria for judging electoral systems, the most important of which were whether a system would yield parliaments in which the number of seats held by a party is proportional to the votes cast for it, whether a system would maintain a close link between MPs and their constituents, and whether a system would produce stable and effective governments.

In the past couple of months, three options have emerged with significant support: no change, the Alterna­tive Vote, and the Additional Member System. On ba­lance, the system that satisfies most of Plant’s criteria is AMS, in which MPs elected in single-member constituen­cies are topped up from regional lists. Crucially, neither no change nor AV, in which single-member constituen­cies are maintained but voters list their preferences among candidates, adequately satisfy the criterion of proportionality.

Critics of AMS argue that it would hand disproportionate influence to centre or fringe parties, would create two classes of MP and would allow party machines too much influence in determining candidates for the regional top-up seats.

The last of these objections is the least serious: a democratic regional party selection process would ensure that parly members and not party bureaucrats would determine the party list. The “two classes of MP” argu­ment is stronger, though hardly decisive: it would be easy enough to organise a system whereby regional list MPs were allocated constituency-type duties in areas of their region where no single-member constituency MP had been elected.

The most important argument against AMS is that it gives Centre or fringe parties too much influence, inevit­ably yielding coalition governments which emerge after secret wheeling and dealing behind closed doors in the immediate aftermath of an election. Against this, it is rightly said that political parties are themselves coali­tions, that no system, even FPTP, rules out coalition government, and that AMS would not rule out creation of a single party forming a government if it really had majority support among the electorate.

Nevertheless, the issue of disproportionate centre or fringe party influence – which also applies to AV – cannot be ducked. The choice in the end is between a system in which the centre or the political fringe might have greater influence than their support warrants and one which has given the Tories 12 years of massive parliamen­tary majorities on a minority vote. On balance, the former has to be the lesser evil.

Will John Major go for a November election? It is unlikely that he has finally made up his mind, but it is  quite likely that he will opt for the autumn rather than hanging on until spring. The Tories are ahead in most opinion polls, and they believe that the economic tide has turned in their favour. With the strong possibility that any upturn will be temporary and with the danger that the Tories will be badly split over Europe by the end of the year, Mr Major will almost certainly go for November if his party is leading clearly in the polls after the Tory conference.

With this in mind, the Tories are mounting a political offensive. Perhaps it will work – but it is difficult to see how. The Conservative strategy seems to consist of little more than accusing Labour of incompetence, claiming one day that Labour has a hidden radical agenda and the next that it has given up its principles. The Tories have little in the way of a positive programme to offer the voters. Their Citizens’ Charter is a damp squib; their remaining major privatisation plans are unpopular; and their “council tax” replacement for the poll tax is at best uninspiring. They are incoherent on Europe and outdated on defence. Add their appalling record on economic policy, the health service, education, training, transport and the environment, and it is clear that they are going to have serious problems winning support.

But Labour cannot afford to rest on its laurels and hope that a well-behaved conference and slick party political broadcasts will make up the gap in the opinion polls, so that Labour wins a November election or, if the surge comes sooner, forces Mr Major to put off the election. Labour is better prepared for an election than ever before, and the confidence exuded by the party leader­ship is not just for the television cameras. But the whole party will have to work hard to win. The task is not merely to persuade the voters that Neil Kinnock is a fine fellow with a competent team behind him but to convince them that Labour has a cogent and attractive vision of a future Britain. If Labour comes across as being the same as the Tories, with a few slight differences on education and the health service, the party will not win, nor will it deserve to.

The cash crisis at the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has prompted several premature obituaries in the right-wing press. They are premature not just because CND members have responded generously to its appeal for money (although more is needed) but because the campaign still has a crucially important role to play.

Despite the end of the cold war and the collapse of Soviet communism, despite the seemingly rosy prospects for far-reaching arms control agreements, the political and military establishments of the nuclear powers (with the apparent exception of what was the Soviet Union) remain as committed as ever to the insane idea that threatening the use of weapons of mass destruction is essential to maintain credible defences.

Even as the Soviet Union ceases to be capable of threatening the security of Western Europe and the United States, the Western military and its political friends raise the spectre of nuclear-armed Third World dictatorships as the justification for maintaining their nuclear arsenals. Even as obsolete weapons systems are negotiated away, new weapons systems are being de­veloped. The American and French nuclear weapons programmes are still racing ahead.

All this is absurd and obscene. Yet without CND there would be barely a squeak of criticism in British political life. Labour in particular has spent most of the past four years running away from a critical stance on nuclear weapons. Unilateral nuclear disarmament was jettisoned in 1989. In the past few months Labour’s leaders have gone further. Instead of remaining vague about how they propose to negotiate away British nuclear arms, first Gerald Kaufman (ambiguously) and now Neil Kinnock (unambiguously) have promised that a Labour govern­ment would keep British nuclear weapons for as long as anyone else was nuclear-armed. Meanwhile a Labour government would do its best to get British nuclear arms included in the second round of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, and would press hard for rapid prog­ress towards massive cuts in the world’s nuclear arsenals.

Looking on the bright side, this position is still better than the Tories’, which remains unambiguously pro-deterrence, opposed even to British involvement in START 2. So far, Labour’s leadership has not gone so far as to embrace the notion that nuclear arms really do constitute a deterrent: they remain, at least in the small print of party policy, merely bargaining chips to secure reductions all round. A Labour Prime Minister would not, one can safely surmise, press the button.

But by promising to keep British nuclear arms as long as anyone else has them, the Labour leadership has come perilously close to making a mockery of its criticisms of deterrence and, in the process, has made any future Labour government a hostage to the willingness of the other nuclear powers to negotiate total elimination of nuclear weapons.

A nuclear-weapons-free world is cer­tainly desirable, and a Labour government should attempt to facilitate it in any way it can. But it is easy to construct scenarios in which British insistence on retain­ing nuclear weapons as long as anyone else has them scuppers a far-reaching nuclear disarmament deal which nevertheless falls short of total elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world – for example, an agreement to eliminate all submarine-launched ballistic nuclear mis­siles. It will be essential to put pressure on a Labour government, from inside and outside parliament, on nuclear arms. Without CND, that task will be infinitely more difficult. The campaign deserves our support in its hour of need.