As the story goes, not long before his last illness Mr Aneurin Bevan got hold of a group of trade union leaders for a meeting of the Labour party national executive and angrily said to them: “You people no longer have the power to win us a general election. But you can lose it for us.” The story might have got dramatised, but there is no doubt that Labour leaders have for years regarded the trade union movement as the old man of the sea on their back. To some extent Mr Harold Wilson’s anxiety whether the trade union movement will help or hamper in the task of projecting a new image of the Labour party should have been relieved by the developments this week.
Even before the conference of the Trade Union Congress opened on Monday it was clear that the centre-piece of the proceedings would be the debate on the general council’s supplementary report on planning and economic development drawn up in the context of the report of the National Economic Development Council. The debate on this report and its outcome was to show whether the trade union movement was willing to rise above shibboleths, slogans and1 prejudices of the past and accept the new role that the changed and changing circumstances had carved out for it. In the event the Trade Union Congress did not provide a clear answer, but the change in outlook that was reflected both in the course of the debate and voting on related if contradictory resolutions is not to be despised.
Controversy
The controversy on the report centred on one paragraph which said that the general council accepted the National Economic Development Council’s view that the “money incomes as a whole (wages, salaries and profits) should rise less rapidly than in the past” and that “such a policy can succeed only if those concerned are convinced that it is a part of a wider programme of growth of real income and that restraint by one section of the community will not merely result in a gain by other sections.”
On the face of it this paragraph did not commit the workers to accept wage restraints unconditionally. It made the acceptance of such restraint conditional on limitations on dividends, profits and rents and the enforcement of a proper price policy. Still it aroused the ire of the more militant – another name for the distrustful – sections of the trade unions and the paragraph was re-written and the stipulation that “money incomes should rise less rapidly than in the past” was removed to provide that “money incomes should not rise more rapidly than output.” Also the question of limitation on profits and rise in prices was more explicitly spelled out.
Logically the preparation and adoption of the supplementary report flowed from the earlier decision of the Trade Union Congress to participate in the work of the Rational Economic Development Council last year. It has six representatives on the Council. They were a party to its recommendations. But it is worth noting that the very concept of an overall agreement on wage increase goes against the whole tradition of the British trade union movement which is one of collective bargaining by each individual union with the employer solely for the benefit of its members. The unions are organised on the old craft basis and not industry-wise. They have resisted organisational changes in spite of the awareness that the outmoded structure produces unnecessary conflicts and distorts the wage structure between different categories of workers.
The “forward looking” general secretary of the T.U.C., Mr George Woodcock, was himself aware of the conflict between the tradition of the movement and the necessities of the time. While moving the controversial report on Wednesday he spoke in two contradictory refrains. On the one hand he said “it is wrong and extremely dangerous even to attempt to interfere with unions in this collective bargaining process” and on the other he asked the delegates if their representatives were to “sit supine, dumb and mute” when the question of wages came up in their discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This apparently contradictory approach on the part of Mr Woodcock was neither new nor surprising. It was not new because it has been implicit in the T.U.C.’s acceptance of the Development Council and rejection of the Incomes Commission though the work of both is essential if the economy is to be planned. On Wednesday Mr Woodcock said that he rejected the Commission because it represented an attempt “from top, outside industry, by people not responsible to working people to super-impose limitations and controls in negotiations on people whose responsibility lay to their members.” To an outsider this makes little sense because it strikes at the roots of any attempt at planning.
Evolutionary
I am not in a position to say whether Mr Woodcock adopted this approach deliberately or this thinking proceeds along such tortuous lines. It is, however, significant that not a single commentator has taken a critical view of this aspect of his performance. It is, therefore, safe to assume that he was muddling through in the traditional British manner. In Britain institutions evolve more often under the pressure of circumstances than according to the dictates of reason and logic. Personally I am inclined to regard the adoption of the resolution which in violation of the spirit of the supplementary report rejected the policy of wage restraints under a Conservative government as part of the same evolutionary process. The concept of planning is barely a year old in this country.
It is doubtful that Mr Selwyn Lloyd was fully aware of all the implications of planning when as Chancellor of the Exchequer he set up the National Economic Development Council last year. In all probability he devised it as an expedient to distract attention from the mess his policy of deflation and pay pause had created. When he was unceremoniously dismissed in July last year, doubt was expressed whether the new Chancellor of the Exchequer would pay any attention to the recommendations of the Council. The idea has now caught on and must inevitably develop a logic of its own.
The task of planners is defined by what the people demand. Britain is undoubtedly a class society but the main problem as the majority of the electorate sees it is not to rub out differences in incomes. The people are not so much concerned with it as with other aspects of the problem. The inequality of opportunity in the field of education is appalling for a democratic society. Over 75 per cent of the students are debarred from university education at the age of eleven. The demand for a vast expansion in education is irresistible. Less than 40 per cent of the population owns or is on the way to owning its living accommodation. No party can ignore the need for a vaster building programme, something like half a million new houses every year. There is greater concern at the slow rate – two and half per cent – of economic growth because it is recognised that only a rapidly expanding economy can provide the basis for good life for every citizen.
The Challenge
The Conservative party has lost face with the electorate primarily because its policy of stop-go – periodically inflating and deflating demand at home – has not produced an efficient economy. The Labour party election platform has no choice but to accept the challenge of a faster rate of expansion. The Development Council has put it at four per cent a year. Labour’s victory depends mainly on its capacity to convince the electorate that it is willing and able to meet this challenge. The achievement of a four per cent rate of expansion depends on a five per cent annual rise in exports which in turn depends on the competitiveness of British goods with those of its principal competitor, West Germany. Wage restraint is the cornerstone in this whole edifice.
Ever since his election as leader, Mr Wilson’s energies have been directed to project the Labour party as the party of economic growth. He is credited with the idea of wanting to establish a new ministry of production as a kind of economic overlord if he moves to Downing Street. The expansion of social services, education and housing which is the other part of his programme is no longer a class issue. What differentiates the two principal parties is the degree to which they are willing to intervene directly in the economic life of the community. The Labour party is prepared to make a major intervention. The trade unions have indicated at least the willingness to cooperate.
The Times of India, 7 September 1963