Beyond the Freeze TRADES UNION CONGRESS
By STEPHEN MOODY
MR WILSON made his last visit to the Trades Union Congress as the man born to be king. This time he might almost be wearing a crown of thorns. Almost, but not quite, for —as the last twelve months have shown—the unions can absorb a remarkable amount of punishment, always provided it is administered by a Labour government. The TUC General Council has now been ravaged so many times that one more indignity will make little differ- ence. So when Mr Wilson flies to Blackpool on Monday he can expect a polite and respectful reception. He will be allowed to ignore the delegates and address his speech to the world outside, and no one will consider it an affront. And then he will doubtless return to London feeling that the TUC has its uses after all.
But if he is in a sensitive mood, he might also reflect that the atmosphere of the Congress is noticeably cooler than when he last addressed it in September, 1964. The unions may still be servile, but they are no longer deluded. The change is, of course, understandable. Two years ago many of their leaders, including some who should have known better, really believed that a Labour victory in the general election the following month would transform the economic outlook. Deflation, unemployment—and inter- ference with collective bargaining above all— were regarded as peculiarly Conservative devices. After twenty-three months of Mr Wilson, they now know better. He can reasonably claim to be a pace-setter in industrial stagnation, if nothing else, while his imposition of a wages freeze has impressed even his critics as thoroughly professional. The only trouble, from the unions' point of view, is that none of this was in the prospectus.
What they were promised in that balmy autumn of 1964 was not a freeze, but a 'planned growth of incomes.' This phrase was, in fact, probably the most successful (and the most disingenuous) of Mr Wilson's large collection of PR bromides. The unions were in favour of planning, and they were also in favour of growth. So the application of both conceptions to the question of incomes was an irresistible combination. Nobody in the unions was intrepid enough to suggest that a 'planned growth of incomes' was precisely the same thing as wage restraint. Nobody pointed out that planning is necessarily an exercise in containment, as well as expansion. Nearly every- one in the Labour movement grasped thank- fully at the belief that a genuine alternative to wage restraint had been found. Even including Mr Cousins.
The inevitable disenchantment was gradual. The unions clung to the illusion through the early months of the new government, and actually thought that Mr George Brown's 'statement of intent' was an important new departure in economic policy. Many of them were in the same reverie in April last year, when the first White Paper on prices and incomes was published. It is, indeed, possible that a: few are still in a state of coma: certainly, Lord Cooper's General and Municipal Workers and Sir William Carron's AEU are givitig a breathtaking display of last- ditch loyalty. But for the majority, at any rate,
the truth has finally dawned, and it is all the more unpleasant for being unexpected. Most of the unions which support the Government at next week's Congress will do so out of a simple and unadulterated sense of political loyalty. And while this may be better than nothing, it is a good deal less than a Labour government should be able to claim only five months after returning to office.
For a sense of duty, unaccompanied by any other motive, is a pathetically fragile reason for doing anything. It will, however, be the attitudes and motivation of the unions which will matter next week much more than how they divide at the end of Wednesday's debate. At the moment, there are roughly 34 million votes on each side, with another 1,200,000 liable to go either way. Mr Wilson will, therefore, enjoy a narrow win, or suffer a narrow defeat. But this is relatively unimportant. The unions have frequently demon- strated how totally meaningless their formal decisions are. It is, after all, only eighteen months since the 34 per cent 'norm' and all its implications were overwhelmingly approved by a conference of executives. The freeze is itself a sufficient commentary on how little that signified in practical terms. A majority for the govern- ment next week will not be a promise of co- operation, any more than a majority against it will be a threat of active rebellion. The unions' tactics will be determined, as they are always determined, by the circumstances in which they operate and the bargaining power they possess.
In any event, the freeze is no longer the ques- tion. With the Prices and Incomes Act safely on the statute book, Mr Wilson can afford to have all the unions voting unanimously against him without losing anything more serious than per- sonal prestige. Part IV of the Act was introduced so that the freeze could be forced down their throats if persuasion failed. What matters now is whether the government will be able to pick up its incomes policy again at the point where it was dropped, or whether next year will see such an avalanche of wage demands that a fresh attempt at orderly regulation would be hopeless. Some unions—notably the Shopworkers and Pub- lic Employees—have been careful to distinguish between their opposition to the freeze and their support for the old incomes policy. Mr Cousins. on the other hand, dislikes both almost equally, and so do most of the other union left-wingers. The significance of next week's Congress will lie in which of these two factions comes out on top.
It is on this issue above all that Mr George Woodcock, the general secretary, will be missed. For Mr Woodcock, though as firm an opponent of the freeze as Mr Clive Jenkins, has the sense to recognise that it is a fact which the unions are obliged to accept, however reluctantly. The area of choice is now limited to the next phase. But the choice does not belong to the unions alone. The government itself, by the intelligence with which it administers the freeze, will ulti- mately decide whether it is possible to revive a voluntary incomes policy in 1967. And it needs to be said even at this early stage that the signs are not encouraging. Mr Brown's translation to the Foreign Office, Mr Stewart's silence and Mr Gunter's advice to employers to dishonour their industrial agreements are not exactly calculated to keep the unions' resentment in check. To the extent that resentment grows, the efforts of Mr Woodcock and his supporters to resume where they left off will inevitably be weakened. Perhaps, in fact, it is not too soon to suspect that the attempt is already doomed.
Previous page
