Centrepiece

To have and have not

Colin Welch

Like others who enrich debate and advance the truth by bold speculation, my dear old copain Peregrine Worsthorne Is liable to err, and is not normally less stimulating and fruitful when erring. As Popper has argued, new truths are often discovered as a result of false but interest- ing hypotheses. At this moment Peregrine is propagating what looks to me like an interesting error of use to the enemy. If we examine it, however, something useful to US may emerge.

The old bird is of the opinion that, because more people today are well-off and employed than are poor and unem- Ployed, it is now 'practical politics . . . to Persevere with economic policies which bear most heavily on the poor and unem- ployed. What Mrs Thatcher says, in ess- ence,' he continues, 'is that the poor and unemployed "have-not" minority must agree to make sacrifices of their jobs, etc, in the interest of the country, i.e. the 'have" majority.' Now I certainly do not recall Mrs Thatcher saying anything like this, in essence, in Brighton or anywhere else. If she did, I would think it nonsense of a sort damaging to her. The unemployed in fact confer no be- nefit on the employed by being unem- ployed. On the contrary, the loss of what they could have made or done is a loss to the whole community. The cost of support- ing them must also be borne mostly by the employed, who are doubtless reduced in numbers by the heavy burdens imposed on them and their employers — burdens (dare I say?) made heavier still by widespread fraud. Social security 'snoopers' have found up to 64 per cent of claims false in some offices; the average may be about 40 Per cent. In these respects it is the em- Ployed who are making the sacrifices.

Among the unemployed are many, in- cluding a whole subculture of communes, squats, and 'claimants', who have never sought work and would never accept it if Offered or, alternatively, who claim dole and supplementary benefits while actually getting cash on the side or from crime. It is surely absurd to pretend that such people behave as they do in obedience to some call from Mrs Thatcher for 'sacrifices'. There are those too, ludicrously conspi- cuous at jobless demos, who have been at Pains to render themselves unemployable by aberrations of appearance, manner or mode of life — none of these conceivably adopted to please Mrs Thatcher. Also among the unemployed, alas, are Many decent folk who, often with reluct- ance and sorrow, have ruefully concluded that they are better off on the dole. It is going to work, not staying at home, which involves 'sacrifices' for these. Doubtless. Mrs Thatcher is well aware of the poverty trap and, if it persists, it is not because it is supposedly in the interest of her 'have' supporters but presumably because she cannot or dares not dismantle it.

Also among the unemployed are those who are commonly said to have 'priced themselves out of jobs'. This is often, I agree, cruelly misleading. The pricing is usually done by trade unionists in jobs, who set a price for labour at which the market cannot conceivably be cleared. In particular it is not the young who have priced themselves out of jobs, but false friends who have filched from them the right to undercut. Again, Mrs Thatcher must be sadly aware of the continuing rigidity of the labour market and, again, if she does not do more about it, is it not because she dares not? Artificially raised labour costs, with production thus artifi- cially restricted, are not in the interests of the 'haves'.

Mrs Thatcher might of course concede that the possibility of losing one's job helps to maintain labour discipline, and that a modest reserve of short-term between-jobs unemployment enables new enterprises to start up without grossly inflating demand for labour. She might even concede that it is better for people to be openly unem- ployed, and thus available for real jobs, than to be 'employed' in deceptive Potem- kin make-work rackets, which are another burden on the employed. But she could concede no more. Mass unemployment on the present scale is of no use to her or her 'have' supporters, to Peregrine or me or anyone else. It imposes grievous burdens not only on the 'deserving' unemployed but on us all.

How then has it come about? From Mrs Thatcher's (surely correct) conviction that sound money is necessary for high employ- ment as for every other economic good thing; from her consequent determination to reduce inflation; and from the fact that her measures to this end are operating in an economy with a rigid wage structure and seductive welfare benefits, and so produce dire side-effects.

High unemployment is thus the unwel- come by-product not of any demand by Mrs Thatcher for 'sacrifices' from the poor, but of her inability or refusal to introduce, let alone persevere with, policies which could be represented (perhaps falsely) as 'bearing most heavily on the poor and unemployed'. If anything, it is the softness, not the hardness, of her heart and will- power which keeps unemployment so high.

The distinction is important, while Labour continuously accuses her of rejoic- ing at and profiting from what must worry her to death.

rrlhe case for legalising or decriminalis- ing drugs,' wrote Geoffrey Wheatcroft, and he had heroin specially in mind, 'is strong both pragmatically and abstractly. To claim that it would in itself end the "drug problem" is hazardous, although it would be surely beneficial if drugs and the drug culture were stripped of illicit glamour' — my italics, and the illicit glamour is presumably engendered by illegality.

Haven't we been here before? One of the most persuasive arguments for the legalisation (which I supported at the time) of homosexuality was that, bereft of the perilous excitements, exploited injustices, clamorously rehearsed grievances, recur- rent martyrdoms and 'illicit glamour' con- ferred by illegality, the homosexuals would simmer down. They would make their peace with society, and live in quiet con- tent, cultivating their own gardens. A period of silence, such as Attlee com- mended to Laski, was to be expected from them.

Nothing of the sort has occurred. Given an inch, the homosexuals demand an ell. Granted legality, they have advanced bold- ly, noisily, immodestly, without shame, flaunting and organising themselves, pro- selytising vigorously, demanding ever fresh 'rights', privileges, hand-outs, immunities, special representation and public respect.

If homosexuality is a 'problem', like drugs, certainly it would be 'hazardous' to claim that legalisation has ended it. No longer illicit, the glamour has if anything increased.

Auberon Waugh gave excellent reasons why heroin won't and shouldn't be legal- ised. If he were to prove mistaken, would we be assaulted by organised agitation for heroin users' rights, power and liberation, for the right of heroin addicts to fly aircraft and perform surgical operations, to teach in schools and introduce heroin to chil- dren? I wouldn't now care to bet against it.

Bright the lamps shine on gay men and fair boys, a thousand hearts beat happily, and soft eyes look love to eyes which speak again; 'but hush! hark! a deep sound• strikes like a rising knell. Did ye not hear it?. No; 'twas but the wind' — but was it the uttered names of dread diseases which now infest, terrify and imperil the homosexual community? These names were listed in a recent American Spectator: not only AIDS but GBS (Gay Bowel Syndrome, a group of diseases including amebiasis, giardiasis, shigellosis and hepatitis A) and, more serious still, hepatitis B and hepatitis non- A, non-B, as well as gonorrhea and syphi- lis. And some of these diseases, hard to detect, endanger not only the homosexual community but, through food handling and blood transfusion, everyone else as well.

As what has been sown in our day is reaped, perhaps all glamour, licit and illicit alike, will fade from what may once again be thought unnatural vice.