14.05.1998
Secret censorship and secret solidarity
Star wars
The Morning Star management committee’s 1992 policy decision not to mention the CPGB or Weekly Worker in “the paper of the left” is still in effect. When striking Star journalists accepted our advertisements in The Workers’ Morning Star, we received a spate of enquiries from old Star readers who had been kept in ignorance of our existence. But now the strike is over we are still ostracised from the paper by management decree.
In the 1992 general election, when the ban was fresh, editor Tony Chater was forced to drop his previous practice of reporting the votes of all parliamentary candidates in all constituencies. In this way he avoided admitting the ban publicly. Even now, Star readers can expect no report of how CPGB candidates fared in the May 7 local elections, despite the journalists’ strike victory.
The Socialist Party, however, is favoured with a mention. The Star is always low-key about its close connection with the so-called Communist Party of Britain, whose own electoral efforts were played down. So alongside the meagre May 9 report, “Communist candidates pleased with results”, we find “Socialist Party celebrates Coventry election victory”.
This rare mention of the fortunes of another left organisation might, of course, be ascribed to a new policy of openness at the Star following sacked editor John Haylett’s reinstatement on the back of the journalists’ militant action. However, a more specific connection is revealed by Mick Cotter in the SP’s internal Members Bulletin. The piece was evidently written before the strike finished:
“The Socialist Party’s printers, Eastway Offset Ltd, have recently been printing The Workers’ Morning Star… When the journalists began strike action in February the management committee’s response was equal to that of any reactionary employer in an attempt to silence and intimidate the strikers.
“The strikers, producing a weekly paper, recently approached us to print it for them. The Morning Star was previously printed daily by the SWP’s printing company [East End Offset – IF] but, when the strikers began producing their own weekly paper, the SWP conveniently couldn’t find a slot in their printing schedule, despite no longer having a daily edition of the Morning Star to do.
“We can only speculate as to why the SWP couldn’t find the time to show a bit of solidarity with workers in struggle. It may be that they want to preserve their relationship with the PPPS management committee in the hope that they can resume printing after the dispute is over. Or it could be that the SWP bottled it after the PPPS management committee faxed printers in the London area, threatening legal action against anyone who printed the strikers’ paper. (We know of one other printing company who pulled out after being threatened, but they were an entirely commercial firm). Either way, it seems a shabby way for a so-called revolutionary party to behave.
“We decided we would not be intimidated by the threats and would continue to print The Workers’ Morning Star until the dispute is over. The long-term future of the Morning Star is unclear, but we have established a relationship with the strikers which may benefit us in the future.”
A commendable decision. Star journalists, and Mick Cotter, will know precisely to what extent this noble choice was influenced by the fact that the CPGB’s printshop had already guaranteed that The Workers’ Morning Star would appear.
What a pity none of this telling tale of solidarity will be made known to the readers of the Star, or The Socialist … or Socialist Worker. Long live openness!
Ian Farrell