Political Commentary
The miners' heavy tread
John Grigg In his Panorama interview on 25 October the Prime Minister said: 'I think . . if the IMF were to try to force us into policies which would be so harmful for the economy that it would go into a downward spiral, then we would have to say .. . "you yourself must accept the political consequences of what you are doing": This statement, taken in conjunction with others in the interview, can only be seen as a threat that if our creditors require us to become creditworthy the result may be a virtual revolution in Britain and effective British withdrawal from the Western alliance.
Of course Mr Callaghan is no revolutionary, and of course he wishes Britain to remain a loyal partner in the defence of the West. But how much are his personal convictions worth if they are not shared by the politico-industrial movement that he leads? The IMF is entitled to reply to him that if his government tries to force it into financing policies so harmful to the British economy that the downward spiral will inevitably continue, then Britain must accept the economic consequences of what its government is doing—and not doing.
Last week Mr Callaghan seemed less strong than at Blackpool, less strong even than in the last economic debate in the House of Commons on 11 October, when he took a stand against cutting public expenditure by £10,000 million, thus appearing to imply that cuts amounting to £3,000 or £4,000 million were by no means out of the question. But on Panorama he spoke only of reducing the borrowing requirement in slices over two or three years, and gave the impression that he was as willing to do the job by increased taxation as by expenditure cuts.
Despite this very noticeable shift the national executive committee of the Labour Party kicked him in the teeth at its meeting on 27 October, carrying a motion which urged constituency Labour parties to campaign for a reversal of the Government's strategy. This meeting received far more publicity than that of the TUC-Labour Party liaison committee three days earlier, or that of the TUC general council on the same day, at both of which support for the Government's strategy was in principle reaffirmed; and Mr Callaghan has some grounds for complaint against the media that the least important body was given the most publicity.
But unfortunately it cannot be said that the trade unions are fairly and squarely on his side against the NEC. If that were so, he would have little to worry about and the future would be tolerably bright for the country as well. To some extent, however— and here lies the danger—the unions are in practice opposed to the Government's strategy. Many are partly, and some are very largely, in sympathy with the NEC.
The most sinister aspect of last week's NEC motion was the backing pledged to the mass trade-union 'lobby of Parliament' which is due to take place on 17 November and whose object is to protest against expenditure cuts and the unemployment caused by them. The lobby is being promoted by the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE), with the support of other white-collar unions including NALGO, ASTMS, the TASS section of the AUEW, COHSE, CPSA, NUT and NATFHE, not to mention some whose collar-tinge is less determinate, such as the students, musicians and firemen.
So far the list is overwhelmingly nonmanual or, to be more precise, overwhelmingly composed of workers who do not have to dirty their hands. The big battalions of manufacturing industry seem to be absent.
But wait a moment there is one name to be added to the list that differs in that respect from all the others, a name to make governments tremble. For the most significant union supporting the lobby is the National Union of Mineworkers.
Between now and 17 November there is time for other manual and manufacturing unions, as yet uncommitted, to join the NUM. Moreover, even if the TGWU, for instance, is kept out of the demonstration by Jack Jones, many of its local divisions and branches may defy head office and take part. The same is already happening to the TUC, because although Congress House has nothing to do with the lobby, the SouthEast and West Midlands Regional Councils of the TUC are supporting it. The number of trade unionists so far involved is about three million, and during the next fortnight millions more may either deliberately or unwittingly join the bandwagon.
On 17 November the demonstrators will assemble in Hyde Park for a mass meeting which will last an hour. Then they will march down Park Lane, through Victoria, down Vauxhall Bridge Road to Millbank. There (in accordance with the law) they will leave the streets and take to the pavements for the final stage of their approach to the Palace of Westminster, which they will reach at about 4 p.m. Thereafter, while many of them are lobbying MPs, others will be listening to oratory in the Central Hall, where a meeting is planned to last from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m.
Meanwhile a working party of the NUM and National Coal Board is urgently considering possible schemes of early retirement below the age of sixty-five, to what qualifi cations they should be subject, the possible levels of benefit involved and how the schemes might be financed. This working party was set up after the Coal Board had rejected the NUM's demand, and it is expected to report towards the end of this month. One way and another the Govern: ment must be very conscious of the miners heavy tread. Having crushed Mr Heath, will they now crush Mr Callaghan ? On the face of it they have no desire to do so. In a Labour party political broadcast on 19 October the NUM general secretarY, Lawrence Daly—who master-minded the 1972 miners' strike which changed the nature of British politics—said that he was quite sure the miners would continue to support the Government. 'I think,' he said, 'whatever the difficulties are at the moment that the agreement between the unions and the Labour government is the best policY we've got (a phrase perhaps ominously reminiscent of R. A. Butler's famous comment that Anthony Eden was 'the best prime minister we have'). Mr Daly als° showed realism in saying that he did rWt think we could rely even in the 1980s on 'the oil bonanza from the North Sea'.
But at the same time he expressed his confidence that the Government would stick to its side of the social contract, by extending 'community control over the economy' and introducing 'what's increasingly called industrial democracy so that people are riot confined to having some control over their political future by having a vote once everY few years, but that they will participate in the day-to-day decisions at the economic, level which determine their standard 01 living'. This sort of talk from trade union leaders will ensure continued national decline, whatever the short-term contrivances to arrest and disguise it.
Community control and industrial derno• cracy are, in themselves, potentially harM" less concepts, but the way most peoPle would, rightly or wrongly, presume Mt! Daly to interpret them is incompatible with the Western economic system in which we have to live and compete, and which is als° a vital condition of our political and Per' sonal freedoms. If community control is t° mean unlimited state control, and if indus: trial democracy is to mean workers' control of management and 50 per cent trade uni°11 representation on the boards of companies (as, it is rumoured, the Bullock committee will recommend), we shall before long sec the pound down to a dollar or less. Mr Callaghan must make no more tactical retreats. He must define his attitude towards. state control and call upon trade unionists al every level' to support him in sensibleci patriotic policies. He must also, surelY, fin a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, becatis` Denis Healey has become too much of a liability. The ideal choice would be Jenkins, if at this late stage he could be rgC persuaded to forgo or postpone his assignment. Mr Jenkins has saved 11?.. British economy once before and could rlu so again.
Previous page
