OPPOSITION TO WILSON STILL MARKING TIME
By John Walters
London
The abstention of 60 Labour MP's in the voting for the Defence White Paper after a two-day debate in the House of Commons is a sign of mounting unrest within the whole Labour movement at the policies being pursued by the Wilson government. The background to this "revolt" as the press have called it, is the still-growing unemployment.
The figures for unemployment in the February issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette now stand at 641,073 for the whole of the United Kingdom. This indicates that unemployment is still increasing, even though the rate of increase has slowed down since last autumn. In an effort to cover this up and put a gloss on the present situation, the press have all been referring to the figures for unemployment in Great Britain; i.e., England, Scotland and Wales. This of course excludes Northern Ireland where there is the highest rate of unemployment. It should be noted that the weather so far this winter has been exceptionally mild, and this has helped to keep the figures of unemployment down, for there is normally a seasonal upward movement in this period. Also these figures do not reveal the number of women who have been sacked but have not registered as unemployed, merely reverting back to their role as housewives.
The present recession is still working its way through the economy, and there is a great deal of anxious discussion in the financial and economic press about the right moment for reflating the economy and also about the long-term prospects, the latter being a perennial topic. Professor Paish, a consistent advocate of unemployment to tame the unions , has come out with a warning to the government not to reflate the economy "too soon."
Writing in a Hobart Paper [No. 29], recently published, he says: "If the Government does indeed yield to pressure and activates a new over-expansion of consumption demand in 1968, we may expect a rapid rise of both incomes and output during 1968, a slower rise of output but a continued rise of incomes during 1969, and a new sterling crisis in 1969 or 1970."
He goes on to urge the continued compulsory regulation of wages: "If the monopolistic power of the trade unions can be further restricted and a more equal distribution of unemployment between the regions achieved the economy might be set on the path of non-inflationary growth..." So that there should be no mistake in his intentions, he adds: "But there is no need to control dividends."
Insistence on the need to control wages is central for British capitalism at this stage. This was emphasised at a meeting held on February 22 organised by a leading firm of management consultants (John Tyzack and Partners). There A.J. Merret, Professor of Finance at the London Graduate School of Business, speaking about the prospects for profits for the rest of the sixties, said: "One is talking about a situation in which the profitability of U.K. industry, in the sense of return on capital, this year may well be something like one third below its norm. It seemed fairly fundamental for companies to have plans based on taking a very realistic view -- that it was most likely that the profitability of British industry for the remaining years of the 1960's would be extremely low by historic standards."
The seriousness of the present crisis in Britain (it can be viewed as a postwar climacteric) was underlined at the same meeting by George Cyriax, a well-known writer and financial journalist. He said he regarded the present credit squeeze as being really a part of a more fundamental change in gear in the economy; this flowed from an important shift in finance of the different sections of business, and management should be prepared for this. "If one looks back and says ‘What sort of squeeze are we in at the moment?' not many people would disagree that if one took the average run of companies, the last year or 18 months has overall seen the toughest squeeze on company sales and cash since the end of the war."
It is against this background that the vote in the House of Commons took place. Defence had been debated in the House on February 27-28, during which many MP's spoke against the government, both from their own side as well as from the official opposition. Despite all the promises made before and since the general election, it is clear that the government does not intend to modify its policies; i.e., of supporting U.S. imperialism, nor are there any signs of reducing arms expenditure.
When it came to the vote 60 Labour MP's abstdined. This became headline news in the press, with such comments as "Biggest revolt since election" which appeared on the front page of The Guardian. The government's majority in the voting was down to 39, as against its possible maximum majority of 85 at present. (There are a number of byelections pending for Labour seats.)
At a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour party on March 1, Harold Wilson made a speech threatening the "rebels" with dire consequences if they repeat their actions. It was a speech notable for its brutality and cynicism. He referred to "dogs that were biting and becoming vicious, and they might lose their licence."
This was a hardly veiled threat that some of the rebels would not be endorsed as candidates at the next election, and so they would lose their Parliamentary seats. The fact that Wilson chose to use such metaphors about dogs shows his contempt for the rank and file of the Labour party and the tame left wing in Parliament.
On the past showing of the left in Parliament it is not to be wondered at that Wilson thinks he can speak to them in this manner. However, this time he may have overstepped the limit. There have been angry reactions from many quarters in the Labour movement and some sour comments in the press.
Sydney Silverman, an MP, wrote to the Labour chief whip saying amongst other things, "I do not believe that Mr. Wilson thinks that U.S. policy [in Vietnam] is right ...the continued assertion that it is all North Vietnam's fault is a lie of almost Hitlerian quality and scope."
On wages policy, Silverman said: "Nobody is against the wages policy. What we oppose is the endeavour to get one by imposing the sanctions of the criminal law. That is notmerely foolish and unworkable, it is the abandonment of a clear socialist principle in favour of something very like a Fascist principle."
And further on, he said: "Of course it is the duty of its [the government's] supporters to sustain it in Parliament...But it is the duty of the Government to govern as it promised the people it would govern."
The Guardian also came out with some trenchant criticisms in its editorial of March 6. The editorial was headed, "Where is the Government Going?" Here are some of the points it makes. "At present Labour's ranks are depressed and disillusioned by events of the past nine months. For some the suspicion remains that the crisis need not have been so severe if action had been taken earlier. For many, the deflationary remedies smack not of firm government but of old-fashioned leech doctoring...On top of their economic disillusionment many Labour members have been troubled by the Government's performance on defence, Vietnam and Rhodesia... On Vietnam the Government has spent too long making excuses for inexcusable American action."
Directing its main complaint against Wilson, the Guardian went on: "It was he who, in 1964, condemned a civilisation that could talk of landing a man on the moon while tolerating, in Britain, 1% million houses without a bath, without hot water, and without internal lavatories. It was he who thought that Britain must do more for the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa. It was he who condemned a wasteful and wicked obsession with independent nuclear power and with a world-wide nuclear role."
So it is clear that the present trouble in the Labour party is not on this or that aspect of the government's policy but over the whole trend. The fact that a crisis was reached over defence is symptomatic of this, the Parliamentary left have been consistently asking the government to cut down its overseas military expenditure in particular as well as arms spending generally. The wage freeze and the mounting unemployment is seen as the result of a refusal to do so; therefore, the two issues, defence and economic policy are intertwined.
In view of the economic outlook, the Wilson government seems intent on maintaining compulsory control over wages after July when the present period of "severe restraint"; i.e., wage freeze, is supposed to end. This has brought a conflict with the TUC [Trades Union Congress] and the union bureaucrats generally. The conflict was partly presented in the press as some sort of revolt by the trade unions against the incomes policy. Nothing could be further from reality.
George Woodcock, general secretary of the TUC, speaking to the assembled union executives on March 1, said that there was no disagreement with the government about ends; i.e., wage restraint, only about means. What he wanted was for the government to allow the trade-union movement to carry out its own wage-vetting scheme and not impose one by law. He went on to say that the trade-union movement could not be told what to
do and would not become an agent of the government.
"Sooner or later," he said, "some lad, not necessarily a rogue, moved by his sense of injustice will say this is to me unreasonable and I am going ahead whatever the law says...Then what? A red-robed judge dealing with 50,000 workers? Judge--police--then military? We offer the best prospect in this democracy of dealing with people who don't conforn.
That was what the revolt was about. What the bureaucrats are against is their role and position being undermined by legal sanctions. What Woodcock was saying was that they could police the working class better than the law courts.
It is noteworthy that Frank Cousins supported the TUC plan for wage vetting, and once again came out with the same tired phrases about this being a policy for expansion and not restraint. Whatever Cousins' subjective wishes in all this, his objective role up to now, since his resignation last July from the cabinet, has been to provide a left cover for Wilson. His union, the T&GWU [Transport and General Workers Union] has consistently led struggles against the wage freeze only to head them off. Each time it has been faced with the prospect of challenging the government, it has backed down.
The only militant opposition to the TUC plans came from the smaller unions, such as the draughtsmen, post office workers, boiler makers, etc. But they could only muster 963,000 votes and the plan for voluntary wage vetting was passed by a majority of 6,641,000. One ominous note was sounded for the government by William Hogarth, general secretary of the National Union of Seamen, when he said that if the seamen did not get their 40-hour week in July they would be out on strike again.
However, there is obviously the possibility of a conflict emerging between the TUC and the government if Wilson holds on to the idea of legal wage restraints after July. If such a conflict does take place the possibility is opened of its becoming a wider one with the rank and file, in its present mood, intervening and taking the offensive against the whole idea of wage freezing. Sectors of the trade-union bureaucracies will feel impelled to fight to retain their social base with capitalist society. It is clear that both Wilson and Woodcock are afraid that such a fight will open the floodgates.