The Benn Diaries: 1940-1990 (97 page)

Tuesday 10 November

Went into the debate on North Sea oil at 3.30, and Merlyn Rees opened. I was in the debate most of the time, and Mother and Stephen came to listen. Towards the end, at 9,1 wound up. I had determined that I would clearly get into Hansard the full range of Party policy: that we would renationalise without compensation; that we would take BP into 100 per cent ownership; that we would move towards 100 per cent ownership of oil; that we would use the revenues and other money for the alternative economic strategy, industry and the public services; that we would have planned trade and public ownership; that we would withdraw from the Common Market, and so on. When I made my speech the House was packed, and it went down like a bomb. When I came to renationalisation without compensation Lawson got up and asked me to clarify it, which I did. But when I sat down Michael Foot was absolutely fuming and Peter Shore was boiling like a kettle. I said, ‘Well, it’s all Party policy.’ Actually my side gave me quite a cheer when I sat down, but that is clearly going to be a big issue.

Wednesday 11 November

Shadow Cabinet at 5 was a long and painful meeting. Michael Foot said he wished to make a statement and he had it all typed out, exactly as on 3 June this year. He said he wanted to make further reference to the question of unity. He then read out from the statement that dissent had distracted the Party from its real work and that the Social Democratic Party was ‘our own creation’. He went on, ‘After Brighton, I made an appeal that Denis Healey and Tony would serve in the Shadow Cabinet. I supported Tony on the NEC chairmanships. Tony was a party to the document agreed by the Shadow Cabinet on the renationalisation of North Sea oil and gas. The NEC on 28 October used the same wording, so there is unanimity in the light of Conference decisions. This is a dear illustration of the need for
collective Shadow Cabinet responsibility which is not a fuddy-duddy old rule but necessary to guard against conflict. With his speech yesterday Tony has brilliantly succeeded in throwing the Party into a fresh internal crisis and the whole responsibility rests with him. If Tony goes on in this way, his presence in this Shadow Cabinet will make it unworkable and our conduct will be a shambles. I would not and could not vote for him for Shadow Cabinet in these circumstances though I still hope he will stand on the terms I have set out. But I must make it clear that the main responsibility rests on Tony.’

I replied to Michael that there was no reason why I shouldn’t have quoted in Parliament a Conference resolution and, as to the Shadow Cabinet elections, I intended to stand and the only way we could get unity was round Party policy.

Michael then said, ‘On the oil compensation issue, there has been a change of attitude now. Why didn’t you support Merlyn Rees in the debate? The Tory press had a field day. Common sense and comradeship would have pointed to the need not to do what you did. The Shadow Cabinet can’t be run on a system of having debates in Parliament about what the policy of the PLP should be.’

Merlyn Rees spoke next. ‘All right, the policy on compensation was decided at Conference, but Sam McCluskie changed it last year. The Shadow Cabinet will have to take collective decisions. At the Shadow Cabinet, Tony said nothing against a statement we issued on oil. I did not know what Tory was going to say in the debate but he made me look very foolish. The morale of the PLP and the constituencies is very low.’

Stan Orme commented, ‘I heard both Merlyn and Tony yesterday and Tony was excellent until the last five minutes of his speech. The Shadow Cabinet must stick together. Labour MPs are shattered, and it shows the danger we are in.’

Neil Kinnock said he was a unilateralist, so he had been in the minority for years. He then delivered a lecture on Party unity and said, ‘Our electoral standing is not due to ourselves. Tony, you are essential’, and something like ‘I address your conscience. You are being used by others. You are the most important single member of the Party.’

It was agreed we would come back to it next week.

The mood of the meeting was horrible, the atmosphere icy, and Michael was angry. I am used to it now. The things they said were extreme, but of course they are frantic. After that, it was quite dear that that was the end of me.

Wednesday 23 November

At 2 I went to Room W4, off Westminster Hall, for the first meeting of the Campaign Group, which has been constituted from the old deputy leadership campaign committee. Last night I had drafted a note saying:
‘The Campaign Group, open to any member of the PLP, meets on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday at 2 pm, and at 5 pm on Thursday with the following agenda each day: (1) Today’s news; (2) Today’s Commons business; (3) Liaison with the Labour Movement; (4) Business for the PLP; (5) Future work; (6) Media.’

We are in fact a different type of group from the Tribune Group, which is strictly parliamentary and doesn’t have links outside, is dosed to anyone who isn’t a Member and only meets once a week.

Friday 4 December

Papers full of Foot’s attack on Peter Tatchell, the Labour candidate for Bermondsey, and ‘extremism’ in the Party. The whole machinery of vilification is being set in motion again. Michael has made a tragic mistake and constituency Parties just won’t go along with it. He now has to lie on the bed that he has made. I know he’s trying to clean up the Party so that the SDP will rejoin, and that is the strategy of disaster. We’ll have to go through a difficult time but at the end we shall come out much stronger.

At 6 I watched the news, and Peter Tatchell was interviewed. The reporter was completely unable to fault his arguments. He wouldn’t criticise Michael Foot and he said he looked forward to meeting him.

Sunday 6 December

Caroline has persuaded me that not only should Party unity take precedence at the moment but that I am so damaged by my singlehanded combat against Denis Healey and Michael Foot that I’m a bit of an embarrassment to the Left. So I shall pull out a bit and see how things develop.

Monday 7 December

I went to the Organisation Committee of the NEC at 2.30 and the room was absolutely packed to discuss Peter Tatchell, the candidate in Bermondsey, who has condoned ‘extra-parliamentary activity’.

Neil Kinnock said it was all a matter of political judgement. ‘We were all extra-parliamentary – Michael was too – but the question is: are we talking of extra-parliamentary or anti-parliamentary behaviour?’ It was so pompous, and I completely lost track of his argument. He went on interminably, as he always does, and got warmly cheered by Russell Tuck and Shirley Summerskill. You can’t say more than that.

Eric agreed to amend his motion from ‘investigate the Bermondsey Party’ to ‘report on the situation’ and to shift it to the NEC. That suited me fine.

Kinnock droned on. He said we were really deciding the direction of the Labour Party, and we had to draw a line when candidates weakened the Party – Tatchell did weaken the Party and he did not have the welfare of the Party at heart. Russell agreed with Neil. We should endorse Michael, not
Peter Tatchell. Then someone added that the fact that Tatchell was a homosexual made him less inclined to support him.

Denis Healey thought the constitutional priority was that we had a right and a duty to judge whether candidates were suitable. However, no investigation was needed.

Michael Foot spoke, and more or less reiterated what he had said earlier. We must give him some leverage because the SDP would use it nationally. ‘Many people within the Party on the left, right and centre were saying, “If you don’t speak out we will”, and, if I hadn’t, people would have said I was a coward. Tatchell will not withdraw, and therefore I shall take the matter to the NEC.’

He gave the game away when he said he was pressed by MPs – no doubt he felt that if he hadn’t acted they would have joined the SDP.

In the end, the substantive motion that we didn’t endorse Tatchell was carried by 12 to 7, and will go forward to NEC.

Thursday 10 December

Jim Callaghan has a centre-page spread in the
Mirror
arguing that Labour must expel Militant, prepare for a coalition with the SDP after the Election and consider proportional representation. So that’s Roy Jenkins, Jim and Ted Heath all contemplating a coalition; this is the beginning of the National Government which was a disaster in 1931 and will be this time. At least it’s out in the open now, contrary to what Foot and Healey say. I know that Healey’s research assistant told someone that you couldn’t attack the SDP because we will be in with them after the Election.

Friday 25 December

Christmas Day. Caroline had bronchitis and was very poorly. Josh got up, and we began with a row, because I went down to my basement and found the washing-machine was leaking and the floor was awash with water, with my papers on the floor.

Later Val rang to say that Mark Arnold-Foster had died at lunchtime.

Monday 28 December

Caroline a bit better and eating. She slept a bit. We are both very physically and mentally exhausted.

Thursday 31 December

Lovely sunny day. In the evening we set off for Stansgate, arrived just before midnight, and sat and talked as the year came to a close.

Politically it has been the most dramatic year of my life – the deputy leadership campaign. Was it right? It’s still arguable, but I think it was. It was also a year in which the Party became more politically educated than ever before, and a year in which the policies were agreed.

I became very ill with the Guillain-Barré syndrome, and it still affects me in that my legs are a bit wobbly and my fingers are not perfect. It will be two years before I am completely recovered.

Both of us were active politically. Caroline continued to work with the SEA and produced the Voluntary Schools Report, was involved with the TUC Education Alliance, with UNESCO, to which she was reappointed. She edited
Socialism and Education
and
Comprehensive Education
.

I think now – and my friends agree – that we should fight the General Election on a status quo agreement, whereby the policy is agreed, the constitutional changes are accepted, the Left holds off on further constitutional change, the purges are dropped, and the leadership is not challenged.

In early January 1982 a joint meeting of the National Executive and the PLP, and Trade Unionists for a Labour Victory (TULV) was held at the ASTMS country club at Bishops Stortford. Tony Benn circulated a paper ‘Working for Unity’, to the members of the NEC and to the trade union general secretaries, outlining the basis for a ‘truce’ within the Party. There was reached a tacit understanding that the next General Election could be fought under the existing leadership (ie Michael Foot and Denis Healey), with a manifesto based upon the 1981 Corference decisions, a moratorium on constitutional changes, and a halt to any purge of left individuals or groups.

As a result of the discussions over the two days, David Basnett was able to announce that ‘peace had broken out’ in the Labour Party, which was much trumpeted by the political commentators.

Sunday 10 January 1982

I had the first of my home meetings for some time with Norman Atkinson, Tony Banks, Vladi Derer, Jon Lansman, Ken Livingstone, Michael Meacher, Frances Morrell, Chris Mullin, Reg Race, Nigel Williamson, Audrey Wise and Valerie Wise.

There was a very good paper by Chris Mullin called ‘The Basis for a Truce’. We had a long discussion that went on till about 10.45.

Williamson said there was a fear on the left that there had been a sellout, and Frances agreed it was a big change.

Jon Lansman said the Left was at a low ebb now and therefore we wouldn’t lose by a truce – it was the best way to protect our gains.

Audrey Wise resented the idea of a deal or a truce and said we couldn’t be private in any sense; we had to activate the rank and file to defend its rights.

Monday 11 January

Bitterly cold. The country is under the worst conditions within living memory.

Monday 18 January

Travelled back from Bristol, and a message came from the drivers asking if
I’d like to travel on the footplate. So I went along to their cabin and sat in a very comfortable chair and flew to Bath at about 90 miles an hour in this new 125, through the Brunel tunnel. I got out at Chippenham, went back to my compartment and worked on some papers.

Tuesday 2 February

I went to a press conference at the Commons to launch the report published today on the real cost of nuclear power. The conference was organised by the Committee for the Study of the Economics of Nuclear Electricity. It was packed with authors and scientists of nuclear power, like Colin Sweet, Professor J. Jeffrey, Edward Goldsmith and Sir Kelvin Spencer; David Penhaligon was in the chair. I sat at the back, but Kelvin Spencer kept insisting on bringing me in; I must say the old boy was marvellous. He said he had read all my books and asked me what was happening in the Labour Party now.

The meeting raised all the fundamental democratic questions about open government and information, chairmen of nationalised industries and the accountability problems of controlling technology.

Thursday 18 February

Home from an exhausting three-day trip to the United States. It was worthwhile – it is good to go to the US on occasions.

Reagan has made a tremendous impact on American politics. He is not quite like Mrs Thatcher, because he presides like a monarch over American society, whereas she is a leader and a teacher of a much more formidable kind. They have both won the battle of ideas, because the old New Dealers capitulated as the Old Left did in Britain, but in the course of fighting against that old decaying corporatist, liberal, capitalist structure a great generation of really tough people was bred, and they are now taking over and carrying through a counter-revolution. They are serious people to fight. We have to breed, by discussion and struggle, a group who are equally capable of doing what we want to do; the present leadership of the Democratic Party is no use at all. Edward Kennedy is a completely empty vessel who thinks of politics as a management job without any ideology.