I was very annoyed by your printing of the 'Open Letter to Socialist Worker on nute 4 sioned oy derecates to camaen rades counci as socialist worker made pur viewpoint very clear on 3 April in an article What We Think'. I suggest the signatories of the letter in Red Weekly read Socialist Worker regularly so as to be in full possession of the facts.
Furtner, anyone wno knows anytning of is politics should also know that opposition to any form of restriction like Rule 14 is automatic. We do not need to be 'urged' to do what our politics - EUNICE SHARPLES LEIFUS IS COrrEEL. (Darlington IS). Your article (15 April). on the fight against Rule 14 adopts a formally correct position in the same way as Socialist Worker has done. You then went on to castigate some IS delegates who voted the wrong way. regret that practice and theory do not always coincide, for in our trades council both IMG and IS comrades voted for Rule 14.
This, 1 believe, does not show any lack of purity in those concerned but highlights the panic which took place when we were confronted with the rule change. I understand that many trades council delegates were 'caught on the hop'.
lutionary left as a whole, both IS and IMG, must take the blame is in not coordinating action nationally in October 1975 when the TUC circular was first issued. It is necessary, after all, to give Three mon as nOTiCe TO Trades councIl: before alterations in the constitution. ine seto lowed their rules to the letter and we did not respond. TONY PEARSON, Darlington.
Red Weekly