DURING the last seamen's strike in Harold Wilson declared: "What s000CP10112110 SABU BRSSBESI To accept the demand would be to breach the dykes our prices and incomes policy.' Ex-petty officer James Callaghan speaks the same language today as he flays the seamen for daring to chalSOcei coRtact. noTe ways than that the pattern of 1966 is are up same forces today as they were in tne shipping magnates, SER E Labour Government, and the TUC. The bankers conspired against the seamen tnen, as tnev do today. And most ot all the seamen - in defying the prices struch tor tne working class as a whole in 1966, as That is why the seamen's strike of Be2101 2101 811m 811 338598369129 defeat for the workers, was in no real sense a victory. And to help prevent repeating itself, the lessons of 1966 are there to terms.
Aieddy some secuions or tne ruling class press are calling for an 'indeinquiry the seamen's wards.
The experience of 1966 shows just how loaded 'independent' today — In 1966 the inquiry was presided over by Lord Pearson, a 66-year old judge who had been educated at St. Pauls School and Balliol College, Oxford. With him on the inquiry were president-elect of the bosses' Confederation of British Industry; Joe O'Hagen, a leading TUC bureaucrat and General Secretary of Blastand Hugh Clegg, In terms of 'objectivity', little could be expected from such a bunch, and little emerged. - The verv lancuage of Pearson Report betrayed authors' allegiances. In one paragraph there was talk of 'the pleasures interests of a sea voyage' and of the enCis me enr ece vec on noi having to travel to work! No. mention was made of such minor inconveniences as being away from family, friends and normal leisure occupations for months at a time. judgement can be made today. years ago the seamen were sacrificed at the altar of the Prices and Incomes Policy, today it is the social contract.
In acting as security guards to the and social contract, the TUC claim to be acting in the name of millions of trade unionists. At least the seamen. have shown that as far as they are concerned Murray and friends do not have their mandate. Every unionist has now, for the first time, the opportunity to show the same.
The threats of the TUC to expel the . NUS for insisting on their right to strike should be answered by resolutions from union branches, Constituency Labour Parties councils condemning the actions of Murrav. vones -anO solidarity would help to break the attemptea isolation or tne seamen -and speak volumes against the wagecut policies of the social contract Again, there is the lesson of 1966 to learn from.
Ten Smear other trade wing.
and trades KHOWIL friends. Such pay. 1966, Labour Parties, confertoday.
the dockers. They offer of We have behaved in a gentlemanly fashion. We have not directly involved any other workers in this country or in any other country.
This unwillingness to spread the action was not confined to the right Although Harold Wilson tempted to smear the strike as a Communist plot, the industrial organiser of the CP, Bert Ramelson, advocated an immediate return to work on one visit to strike leaders in a London flat In the docks, Jack Dash, the best Communist in the country, said: There is no question ot ou striking.' Dash's alternative was that the docks would clog up, they would thereby be brought to a halt, and the dockers would be paid off with full But because of the lack o positive leadership given to dockers, the reverse happened During the strike's second week the Daily Telegraph noted: 'Dock congestion is far less than expected. This is largely because CoCKCIs are allowing ships to be double banked, and also agreeing to vessels being moved to laying-up berths. So the Dash tactics of hoping that the employers would create their own problems was a fiasco And yet, although the opportunities were not taken, 1966 did show that it was possible to build solidarity action amongst millions of workers - despite the scabbing actions of the TUC Above all that should be remembered Tertans o sa on ma mo a a G ulentid Not WantedOr class press. it is no written by the local strike committee was essentially the voice of the local rank-anc file seamen, and as such had an impact tar an above that of any more 'official' NUS statement:
----- pull-quotes -----
GEOFF BELL Munh oft hronuced tin antwer tohe ars