Editorial: On the move . . . (1985)

Editorial from the September 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

. . . for socialism

 

The governments recently introduced board and lodgings rules (see Socialist Standard, June) which forced thousands of young people to move around the country every few weeks or risk having their benefit cut, have been declared illegal in the High Court and the DHSS will be compelled to pay arrears to those whose benefit was reduced.

But it should be noted that it is not on humanitarian grounds that this decision has been made. On the contrary, it was the method by which the regulations were introduced that has been declared unlawful. According to the decision, Norman Fowler had no powers under present legislation to designate board and lodging areas within Britain or lay down time limits for those staying in them.

Mr Justice Mann, hearing the case, made this quite plain when he said:

In my judgement a decision to the effect that able-bodied and independent young people who live on supplementary benefit in lodgings should move from one area to another in search of employment, after a stay judged appropriate for the quest in the first area, does not come within any distance of being outrageous (quoted in The Times. 1 August. 1985).

Maybe he should have taken a look at the annual report of the Manpower Services Commission published at the end of July, which shows that for those aged 18--24 (the age-group affected by the regulation) the unemployment rate is 24 per cent. Of the 1,166.000 unemployed in this age group, 29 per cent have been unemployed for more than a year.

Unemployment is unlikely to affect those present at the American Bar Association's recent London jamboree, where two lawyers gave a paper in which they described the way high unemployment has curbed industrial action and led to lower wage settlements. Unconcerned about the plight of the unemployed themselves, they expressed fear that high unemployment might lead to problems in the future if the apparently docile and compliant work force was in fact saving up their grievances.

The authors have good reason to be worried. But let’s hope that workers do not continue passively to accept the sufferings that capitalism daily serves up, and recognise that strikes for higher pay are not enough. It would be nice to give the American Bar Association something to really worry about — like socialism.