Back to Labour Values index
Back to tripartite talks index
Back to article index
Previous
RULING CLASS THOUGHTS AND TREPIDATIONS
The ruling class's reaction to the talks was definitely mixed. This ambivalence was reflected in the FT at its most conscious. Samuel Brittan was certain by 31 August that some form of prices and incomes policy would be in operation by next spring. But he felt it would hardly be from anything so conscious as the tripartite talks: "But I have an obstinate feeling that the immediate trigger will be something depressingly obvious, familiar and superficial - such as a few bad trade figures, or sterling dipping too far below what is regarded at home and abroad as the lowest tolerable limits ..." For Brittan, an Incomes Policy was a necessary tactic - no more no less. However, by October 19th the tripartite talks seemed likely to succeed, unaided by external events through the momentum of their own content and public support. Brittan wrote:
"I have myself for a very long time been calling for action on this particular front. Articles on this case before the 1970 election drew attention to the threat which the inflationary explosion presented to full employment, and warned that unless something was done there would both be an inflationary rise in the money supply and a rise in the number out of work ... After Mr Barber's 1971 Budget and again after the miners' victory ..., the case for an incomes freeze and/or statutory control of wage bargains was put forward here ... There is a further, more political, reason for being sympathetic to the "£2 for all" proposals being discussed at Chequers. This is that for the first time since its election, the Government has seized the initiative on this issue (instead of just meeting the working class's challenge in the economic struggle - NS) ... The present proposals may well be an essential step towards preparing public opinion for the statutory freeze or ceiling which is really required."
Brittan fears however that Heath may really be serious:
"...the most objectionable aspect is summed up in just that sentence of the conference speech, which was widely regarded as the most generous and far-sighted. This was where the Premier spoke of 'an offer to employers and unions to share fully with the Government the benefits and obligations involved in running the national economy.' At first sight nothing could appear more reasonable. But on reflection, is it really the job of the trade unions to restrain wages or of employers' associations to keep down prices? ... their job is to look after the interests of their members ... They cannot represent and police their own members without being unsuccessful at one or both of these tasks; and it would be difficult to invent a better way of transmitting power to militants at shop floor level. The concept of Government as a coalition of officials and producer interest groups is known as the 'Corporate State'. The label is apt to raise temperatures because it was a term with which Fascist Governments played. But of course the 'Corporate State' has no intrinsic connection with racialism or aggressive nationalism ...The 'Corporate State rests on the fallacy that the national interest is the sum of the interests of trade unionists, farmer, employers, shopkeepers and so on ... it ignores the interest that everyone has as a consumer, which is diffused among thousands of products and activities aside from his own particular industry. A producer-orientated society is likely to make its own members worse off, because of their apparent mutual interest in shoring up each other's special interests and restrictive practices ... The first choice of many political economists would be to use market forces, reinforced by monetary and tax policy, together with certain general rules to harmonise individual and social interest. The trouble arises when a general approach of this kind seems, or appears to be inadequate, and specific controls are required. The instinctive reaction of many Conservatives is that if market forces are not enough then industry and the trade union movement should 'control themselves' in consultation with the Government ... lf the Heath proposals were part of a strategy designed to shift opinion prior to a statutory policy, the approach would be understandable. They might well take such a turning, but through event rather than intentions." (FT, 19.10.72)
On 1st November, Brittan was in a genuine quandary. With agreement seeming just around the corner, he reacted not by attempting to incite the bourgeoisie against their turncoat party but by explaining very clearly what was happening:
"There are two possible roles for those whose job it is to follow arguments about the national economy. There is the diplomatic one, of trying to secure agreement, even if this means claiming that black is white or that there is no real difference between the two. The advantage of this approach is that it is directed towards the immediate and the practical. Its disadvantage is that it encourages self-deception and leaves the running to be made by whatever special interest groups can make the most noise. (He here refers to the Government taking negotiations seriously because it is practical - i.e. forced by events. He calls it self-deception because he fears for capitalism, NS) The other approach is to strip away bogus arguments and emphasise unpopular home truths. ...There is a gain in awareness, especially of the long-term implications of popular slogans; but there are occasions when a few white lies may be a small price to pay to prevent society from breaking apart. It is quite impossible to tell in the heat of the moment which set of dangers is the greater; and it is perhaps best to adopt a certain division of labour with Ministers and officials concentrating on the diplomacy and outside students doing at least a little to nail the propagandist half-truths and mis-statements with which we are being bombarded."
Having proceeded with the analysis earlier quoted in this article, he concludes:
"The more militant TUC leaders are at least frank in stating that their main aim is to squeeze still further the return on capital. But they should recognise that this will mean less investment, and that what investment there is will have a highly labour saving character. A better recipe for unemployment would be difficult to imagine. The more serious Marxists are well aware of this (it is after all in Marx); and they undoubtedly hope that this will lead to the State or a Society of communes, taking over the investment from private enterprise. An unfortunate aspect of the distaste for theory by Conservative and Right-Wing Labour leaders is that they are unwilling or unable to state what is wrong with such a prospect or why it is worth putting up with some inequalities and private fortunes to prevent it ... Finally, one of the strongest arguments against a permanent incomes policy is that these profound questions which split up society into warring camps are brought up with each annual wage rise and with each electricity blackout. The best argument for trying to restore a competitive market system is not its own virtues but the contemplation of the alternatives ." (Note the word "restore" in the last sentence. For Brittan the "monopoly" power of the working class means that the market is rigged - NS)
On the 9th November, after the talks broke down, Brittan heads his column: "Why Mr Heath's Policy Is Right At Last" and states:
"The third reason why the breakdown of the CBI-TUC discussions may not be the tragedy so widely assumed is that responsibility for any intervention that may be necessary with market forces has been thrown back on the elected Government and Parliament where it belongs ... If the responsibilities of the Government are to be shared with union leaders in this way, there can be no permanently excluded subjects: and if the experiment had got off the ground sooner or later every major act of policy would have had to be cleared with the TUC and CBI first; and the leaders of these bodies would have powers of initiative greater than Cabinet Ministers ...There are still many battles ahead (against the 'Corporate State' - NS)."
Brittan clearly saw that if the voluntary agreement had succeeded, sooner or later he and his class would have had to start putting up arguments for the maintenance of the capitalist system, and was very relieved when the failure of the talks at least postponed that possibility for as he himself remarked there were precious few arguments about!
On November 7, Joe Rogaly, Brittan's stablemate who writes the "Society Today' column, comments on "The missing element in the new deal":
"The Freeze that has all along been anticipated by practically everyone excepting the Prime Minister is now with us ... but it would be wrong to go on from there to the assumption that all of Britain's economic problems have finally been solved. To approach that happy millenium would require something that has eluded all post-war Governments, and this Government did not even begin to look for until near the end of its second year in office - namely, a new social contract under which Government, employers, and trade unions might come to co-operate whenever the national interest required that they should do so ... what matters is whether any British Government can find the means and the will to work out a long-term solution to the social malaise that is at the heart of our economic problems."
Rogaly suggests more radical action on all the TUC demands as the first step:
"It (the Government, NS) has yet to learn that excess profits on properties do not so much need to be curbed as to be seen to be curbed, and that the price of ordinary housing will never be dependent on textbook market conditions in a small over-crowded island. ... There is still time, of course, and if the first stage of Mr Heath's Government has taught us anything it is that, in the end, it is not Prime Ministers or even political parties that make policies in this country, but the inexorable pressure of events. Events have forced this Administration to change its mind on just about everything it promised when it came to power ... For, when it comes down to it, there is no present option other than to hope that the country will be saved from real economic (and hence political) disaster by the constant education and re-education of the present Government. There is still no evidence that Labour could do any better, and a great deal of evidence that it would probably do a whole lot worse ... Events have at last pointed Mr Heath in the direction of seeking the necessary support: we must pray that something now causes him to take the proper strides down that long road."
The difference between the two writers is interesting. Brittan is far more in touch with the economic realities of the situation than Rogaly; but Brittan clearly pulls back from the brink, refuses to look at the longer term except to say that long-term incomes policies have been shown not to work and are indeed pointing in a dangerous direction. Rogaly on the other hand is clearly aware that the long-term problem is what the short term Freeze tactic is all about. However he knows no more about the long term except to describe the new social contract as the "milennium'' and be sure that we will arrive at it only through "the pressure of events"... to "pray" and trust to objective reality to do the rest. As always, the FT leaders throughout the five months have not taken up any consistent position except to point out the consistent realities as Heath has acted on them e.g. the pitfall in a voluntary policy being the TUC's ability to deliver its "end of the bargain". Brittan's comment re Tory instinct about control being self-control by the working class is interesting from the [point of view of the? - PB] article in the November Communist, 'The British Road to Socialism'.