Elderly heroes
Jo Grimond
Bliss was it in that eve to be mididle-class But to be old was very heaven.
Last year was the year of the well-heeled and the geriatrics — those who are both rich and old have scored particularly high. Our heroes are the Queen Mother and Lord Stockton. We who are old get cheap travel and other perks, more venera- tion than we ever received when young (look at Lord Shinwell) and if we are lucky we nestle in the House of Lords. Old age starts earlier but the advantages for those on the old-boy network increase. Retired ambassadors take their pensions to the rich pastures of the City; early retirement for professors is the gateway to lump sum payments and part-time re-employment. Many countries have revered the old, often ostensibly on the grounds that they are wise. I don't think that accounts for their high standing in Britain. Apart from their personal qualities, what endears the ancients so widely is that they can be relied upon to do nothing, to change nothing and to keep clear of suggesting that anyone else should do anything except carry on as before. Their other great attribute is pre- dictability. We like what we expect. Hence the success of Lord Stockton, and if the old inspire no one, they equally threaten no one. They are not very beautiful. They are also sometimes a nuisance and expense, but so are the young. Both provide clients for bureaucrats.
All these traits suit conservative, inert, bureaucratic Britain: a Britain frightened of change or originality or even beauty important' is the word used to describe pictures or buildings thought worthy of preservation). We are in a state of quite pleasant decline. In all such periods bureaucracies have done well. But I never expected that they would do so spectacu- larly well as they have under the Welfare State.
As has been pointed out by writers such as Arthur Seldon and Julian Le Grand, the fairly well-off middle class have gained substantially and directly from the sub- sidies for housing, travel, higher educa- tion, pensions etc. But their indirect gains from the Welfare State have been even greater. For it is they who preside over the transference of tax to benefit, the vast, costly and absurd machinery for moving money from one pocket to another. It is they who man (or woman) the argosies of quangos and voluntary societies, govern- ment and local authority offices, profes- sions and professional associations, trade unions, lobbies, research establishments and public relations outfits which bespatter the horizon. The 'working class' is worse than ever represented in Parliament or the bureaus. Mediaeval barons would writhe with jealousy at the size of the public funds which the GLC is able to commandeer for the defence of its empire.
Nobody in the days when the Beveridge Plan was accepted foresaw the metamorph- osis of the 'Left' into the old guard of conservatism. How splendid for the well- to-do to see well-heeled and well- privileged left-wing' students marching and caterwauling against a proposal that the comparatively rich should pay more for the higher education of their children.
How reassuring for the top wage-earners to read the views of Professor Allen on the hardship of the miners. The average wage of face-workers is £175 per week — far above that of many industries. The tax- payers, most of them poorer than miners, have over the last five years supplied £3.1 billion for them.
No miner is to be made redundant against his will. If he chooses voluntary redundancy he can at the age of 54 expect lump sum payments of £24,000 plus £80 a week until 65, if he is unemployed. The annual loss made by the NCB rose by 272 per cent between 1980 and 1984. Yet Professor Allen, like many other people, is full of sympathy for the self-inflicted wounds of the NUM. He tells us that 'hostility shown to scabs is a fact of trade union life'. The Government must not in his view offer more inducements to get miners back to work. That would be iniquitous incitement to strike-breaking.
The NCB and the Government have 'a case to answer' over such incidents as the dropping of concrete blocks on taxis (and, I suppose, the terrorisation of children and the burning of property). The Professor demands the total capitulation of the NCB just as women are sometimes advised to submit to rape which is equally 'a fact of life'. The 'Left' is rallying to the support of the middle class over VAT on books or advertisements on the BBC. It does not seem perturbed that directors should get an average increase of 11 per cent (40 per cent at the top in both public and private employment) while the weekly wage- earner is exhorted to accept four per cent. Who then now speaks for the lower- paid, middle-aged worker? Not the trade unions, which have connived in if not encouraged the attempt to wreck the eco- nomy by the miners' strike and the mainte- nance of wage rates which in some cases have killed jobs. Not the academics or professional people fiercely tenacious of their own restrictive practices. Not Mrs Thatcher. I got the impression that a 'bump' supper is held at Number Ten whenever the prices of oil, electricity, gas or the telephone go up.
The rich with tied houses, offices, office cars and expense accounts are much more adept at evading these impositions than the average wage-earner. As I am both old and fairly well provided for perhaps I should not worry. But it is an odd cul-de-sac in which the high hopes of 1945 have come to rest. Perhaps nothing can be done. Were the working middle-aged to organise, the bureaucrats would no doubt take over. Have we seen the end of a non- bureaucratic party of the poorer (and younger) worker? They are often wrong but their voice should be heard.
Previous page
