NHS dispute: In place of life (1982)

From the October 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

In May the long-awaited and greatly feared industrial action by workers in the National Health Service began in South London. Hundreds of ward orderlies, cleaners, catering staff and hospital porters declared a one-day strike. Similar action was taken in Manchester, where three people were arrested after nurses clashed with NUPE pickets outside Oldham and District General Hospital. On May 19 over 600,000 NHS employees took the day off in various parts of the country; and on May 27 and subsequent Thursdays for several weeks two-hour stoppages by selected groups were staged. The action was stepped up in June.

In the months since the beginning of the dispute, hospital waiting lists have soared, admissions have plummeted and tempers have frayed. Rumours are rife that the strikes may be extended to accident and emergency services within the near future.

The aim behind this action is to improve the pay offer for 1982-3 made to nurses, midwives and ancillary staffs by the Department of Health and Social Security. Initially, the offer proposed an increase of 4 per cent on basic income for most ancillary workers, and an average increase of 6.4 per cent for most nursing and midwifery grades, “in recognition of their special skills”, with veiled promises from the Secretary of State for Social Services, Norman Fowler, of future additional payments to nurses “to be drawn from government contingency funds”. Ambulance workers, doctors and dentists and hospital electricians and maintenance staff, whose pay settlements are made separately, were offered average pay rises of 5, 6 and 8 per cent respectively.

In June, the offer to nurses and midwives was increased to 7.5 per cent; ambulance workers and hospital pharmacists were to receive 6.5 per cent and other ancillary workers 6 per cent. These offers were immediately rejected by all except nurses in the Royal College of Nursing, who have now also voted to turn down the offer.

The nurses' and ancillary workers’ claim was. and continues to be, for increases averaging 12 per cent on basic rates, with a reduction in hours of work and more annual leave, and future index-linked pay increases. For the first time, the ten TUC-affiliated unions representing health service workers were to co-ordinate the campaign for these increases through their membership of the TUC’s Health Services Committee. Of the ten, the most important would be the National Union of Public Employees (NUPE) with 300,000 technical, ancillary and nursing staff members in the NHS, the National Association of Local Government Officers (NALGO) with 100,000 NHS members and the Confederation of Health Service Employees (COHSE) with 150,000 members employed mainly in psychiatric and mental subnormality hospitals. The Royal College of Nursing, which is not affiliated to the TUC but has for some years flirted with the idea of limited industrial action by its 195,000 nursing and midwifery members, declared its support for the campaign in June, though without any change in its "no strike” policy. As it represents more nurses than any other union, the RCN’s support was of crucial importance to the success of the campaign.

Official union plans were to reduce the health service to an emergency service within a few weeks, beginning as early as possible after April 26, organisation being initially by local union branches. TUC policy prevented the withdrawal of emergency cover and there has been no change in this at the lime of writing, although spokesmen for individual branches have asserted that the policy is not sacrosanct.

Since the strike began to bite, with a lull at the height of the Falklands escapade (a propitious exercise for the government from more than one point of view), the propaganda war between unions and DHSS has been vigorous and almost unbroken. The government has naturally gone to great lengths to sugar the pill which its workers are expected to swallow, promising “new arrangements" (unspecified) for nurses' and midwives’ pay in the future, based perhaps on a "comparability scale” of the sort mooted on August 18, and talks on new arrangements for ancillary staff. It has also descended to the unusual tactic of publishing blatantly misleading advertisements to NHS staff in national newspapers (of which more below). But the DHSS campaign has concentrated on the message that, owing to the nature of their work, health workers are morally not entitled to strike or take other action which. in the words of Norman Fowler, "must damage patient services and lengthen waiting lists”.

This judgment has posed a considerable dilemma for health service workers. Indeed, it was thought at first that public outrage against the withdrawal of one of the most vital services — outrage assiduously stimulated by the national newspapers — might seriously weaken the strikers' resolve. In fact, unexpected support for the 12 per cent claim received initially from hospital employees in the National Association of Health Authorities of England and Wales, and from doctors of the usually very conservative British Medical Association and in Scotland and Yorkshire, have greatly improved the NHS workers’ public image. (The Lancet, one of the two most respected medical journals, on August 13 1982. actually called for Fowler’s resignation over the matter. But doubts remain among the strikers about the "justice" and efficacy of their action.

The NHS is the largest employer in Britain, with nearly 800,000 workers, and is the tenth largest employer in the world. NHS pay policy, while it is in the end controlled by the government, is influenced, for some groups of workers, by "independent assessors" like the Doctors' and Dentists’ Pay Review Board. (Senior hospital doctors also retain the archaic right to confer “merit awards" upon one another, which may add around £18,000 to an annual income of £21,000 at top consultant rates, without any party to the exercise being accountable to Parliament or the DHSS.) No independent bodies exist to assess the pay of nurses, midwives and the majority of ancillary workers; the nurses’ and midwives' Whitley Councils are merely negotiating forums. Pay increases in the NHS have not been index-linked and are consequently subject to the vicissitudes of government policy, and have tended to be very low.

The 1974-9 Labour government, pledged to rectify this situation, increased NHS wages and salaries in their first year of office. By October 1975 wage rates were approaching those in other industries, but in subsequent years they again fell behind. The present rate for an unskilled male worker in the NHS is about £65 a wreck. After a 12 per cent increase, the basic rate would still be below the net family income at which supplementary benefit becomes payable (currently £82 a week). So a high level of overtime working is necessary for ancillary workers with families — if it can be had. But there are still workers like the laundry attendant interviewed in the Observer of August 15, who earns £71 take-home pay for a 40-hour week plus 18 hours overtime, and who must support families on that. A first year nurse working full-time on the wards receives £63 (gross) a week, after working frequent night shifts and “unsocial hours" as part of the job contract. Board and lodging costs for nurses in hospitals have risen by between 18 and 33 per cent in the past year. According to COHSE, many of these people would be better off on the dole.

On August 6, the DHSS paid about £85.000 for an advertisement in the main national newspapers “to ensure that all NHS staff are aware of the facts". It stated that a ward sister’s “estimated weekly gross average earnings” would be raised by the current pay offer to between £132 and £170 a week. For a staff nurse, the increase would bring in from £107 to £131 a week; for a male ancillary worker (position unspecified) £91-£146 a week, and for a female ancillary worker, £82-£139.

The following day, health workers staged protest strikes in several Scottish hospitals, and COHSE announced that it would report the DHSS to the Advertising Standards Authority. For, as a NUPE official commented, the higher figure mentioned in relation to ancillary staff would apply to no more than 160 top-grade employees, and then only after working up to 20 hours overtime. All the other figures similarly assumed maximum rates of overtime and additional earnings. In fact, most ancillary workers in cleaning, catering and other general service fields are women working part-time, who would be quite unable to earn such amounts.

The DHSS has since admitted that surplus payments were included in its calculations, but insisted they were “statistically valid". Union statistics clearly show that this was not true, whatever “estimated weekly gross average earnings” may be taken to mean. Need we be surprised? Lies and distortions are constantly fed to us to try to persuade people to smoke cigarettes, to insure for private health care, to support the armed forces, so why should the government not use the same tactics in wage-bargaining?

The way in which the health workers’ scruples about striking have been used by successive governments to hold down wages is demonstrated by the recent awards of between 14.3 and 18.6 per cent to top civil servants, the judiciary and senior officers in the armed forces, of 9 per cent to gas workers and 7.5 per cent to public sector manual workers outside the NHS. For the health workers, according to Norman Fowler, 6 per cent should suffice and 12 per cent is "unrealistic" — as if 12 per cent on a pittance made for anything other than a slightly larger pittance.

The question of pay is not the only one to trouble NHS staff. In recent years the loss of small hospitals and the concentration of beds and ancillary services in large district general hospitals, the reduction in patient turnover time and the cut-back in recruitment have greatly increased the work-load on existing staff. In Brent Health District in London, it has been calculated that earlier discharge of patients (five days earlier, in some cases) and a reduction in the time for which a bed is left empty between successive patients have allowed a 25 per cent reduction in beds without affecting waiting lists. As there has been no increase in the number of staff employed in Brent, either in the hospitals or in the community where patients now do most of their convalescing, this has imposed a heavy extra burden on hospital workers. The day-to-day running of a hospital is very labour-intensive; it is difficult to reduce this by introducing machinery. And it must be remembered that 75 per cent of NHS employees are women who, besides their traditionally lower earnings, tend to have pressing commitments and a full job of unpaid work at home.

Women's average earnings now are 37 per cent lower than men’s; 87 per cent of part-time workers and 75 per cent of lower-paid workers are women. Promotion prospects for women in the NHS are poor, and many are forced to take on agency (private) nursing — a notoriously unreliable source of income — in their off- duty hours. On those precious days when they are not working unsocial hours and night shifts for the NHS, they may be doing so for the agency. In truth, they are a peculiarly exploited group of workers.

The long hours are made even more intolerable by the conditions in which they have to be spent. Many hospitals are still situated in old and wholly inappropriate buildings, particularly geriatric, psychiatric and mental subnormality hospitals and small general hospitals in underfinanced and inner city districts. Less than a quarter of existing hospitals have been built since 1948, as against half of the existing schools and houses; 40 per cent of hospitals in England and Wales were built before 1918. and 6.5 per cent before 1850 (In Sickness and in Health — David Owen). The task of caring for sick human beings in such decayed surroundings may be a particularly frustrating and at times a revolting one, and not without risks. Occupational accidents are by no means uncommon: orthopaedic injuries constitute a particularly grave risk for nurses, through proper lifting aids not being installed.

Even in the best-run hospitals workers may be exposed to infections, air-borne drugs, chemical toxins and radiation at a high level. Among the identified effects of this exposure are miscarriages, which occur twice as commonly among women with an occupational risk of inhaling low levels of anaesthetic gases than among others. Occurrence of tuberculosis is five times as common among microbiological laboratory staff in hospitals as in the general population (Hospital Hazards —leaflet produced by the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, 1981). It is true that the NHS commonly gives its staff priority over other patients when they are in need of medical advice or treatment; but that can hardly be regarded as a perk. People clearly do not join the health service for the sake of their own health.

In an attempt to play down the penalties of employment in the NHS, Fowler referred to it in Parliament as a “service which enjoys secure and growing employment”. This hackneyed argument no longer holds water. It is true that the number of people employed by the service is expected to rise by around 10,000 in 1982-3 but it certainly is not true that individual employees arc secure in their jobs. In such a labour- intensive industry, the tightening of belts demanded by successive governments over the last two decades has meant lay-offs, either through hospital closures or as a result of the policy of reducing staffing levels by “natural wastage”. The resulting increase in work loads for remaining staff has been partially offset, at least in the short term, by the conscription of student nurses and police cadets, who can be made to work hard for little pay, and by steadily increasing numbers of voluntary workers. These people effectively mask the effects of job losses, and even of strikes; the fear that voluntary labour may be used for strikebreaking has often inhibited workers from taking industrial action in the past. This is not to deny the useful work performed by voluntary workers, particularly in geriatric and psychiatric care, and care of the mentally handicapped. But the extent to which voluntary labour has replaced paid labour in hospitals of all kinds puts in doubt both the future standard of care in these hospitals and the good-will extended to voluntary workers by employees whose livelihoods they threaten.

It seems likely that the government will take advantage of the present chaos in the public service to urge increased openings for private contractors in NHS ancillary services and for medical insurance schemes. Even before the dispute, the growing proportion of the NHS workforce hired from private companies was a source of concern to workers who feared it would divide and weaken the unions at times of industrial action, as well as masking the effects of redundancies in the regular workforce. In Sweden. 70 per cent of ancillary services are contracted out to private operators; and such an arrangement would be favoured by the present government, since contract workers are easily hired and fired, and are often more flexible than permanent workers.

Perhaps the most notable feature of the dispute is the distinctive attitude of the nurses and midwives. Until now, these workers have been well known for their willingness to perform an exceptionally demanding and highly responsible job, often under totally inadequate conditions and for the most punishing hours, in return for very low rates of pay. They have been eulogised on paper and on the screen as earthly angels with unshakeable traditions of discipline and dedication. It has often been assumed, both by governments and by the public at large, that in keeping with their singularly “feminine” (because caring) role, nurses should also be politically weak, and should do the feminine thing by obeying the (predominantly male) authorities, just as they are expected to obey the (predominantly male) doctors. Nurses have tended to accept this and have therefore become among the most conspicuously exploited of all workers. Offers of sympathetic strike action from non-nursing trade unions often reflect this all too clearly. Such support may come across as tactless or patronising and may actually reinforce the popular prejudice that a "caring profession" must inherently be vulnerable to exploitation. Even when their union colleagues can turn this prejudice to their own advantage — as during this dispute, when health ministers confessed that only popular sympathy for the nurses prevents them from taking a tougher line with the other health service staffs many nurses feel like weak and therefore second-class union members.

PC

Blogger's Note:

I'm not 100% sure who 'PC' was. My initial thought was that it could have been an early pen-name for Carl Pinel, but I've since been told that it could have been (Doctor) Peter Cook. Fingers crossed that one of them reads the blog, and clears the matter up for me.

Observations: At the social (1987)

The Observations Column from the October 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the social

One place not to spend your holiday is your local office of the Department of Health and Social Security (for such is its full, resplendent name). That is where, every day, hordes of people wait, in states of varying panic or patience, to try to get a hand-out from the state which, if they are lucky or frugal — or preferably both — will keep them alive at the official poverty line.

Waiting at the DHSS office is usually one of the most depressing and undermining experiences of a worker's life. Very often a person who is in desperate straits will hang about there all day. having queued to get in in the morning, to be told at closing time that is has all been a waste of time - they don't qualify for benefit, or there hasn't been time to process their claim, or their file has been mislaid in the system . . .

A predictable reaction to this sort of frustration is violence — against the furniture, the fabric of the building, the staff themselves. In the cheerless waiting areas the well-nigh indestructible chairs are bolted to the floor, the staff protected by screens, the police make regular visits to throw out or arrest claimants whose protests have been too forceful.

The misery and frustration of the "clients" is mirrored in that of the people on the other side of the counter. Morale among the staff is depressingly low and absences for stress-related sickness alarmingly high. Turnover (a nice word to use about human beings) among DHSS employees is so swift that anyone who survives the job for a year may find that they are the most experienced officer in their section.

The DHSS machinery has been overloaded by conditions which the experts, the planners and the politicians said would never happen. The post-war Welfare State was supposed to take care of everyone's needs, from our birth to our death and then to see us comfortably into the grave. Of course there would be the few who would be embroiled in some unpredictable crisis and for them there would be the safety net of National Assistance - now renamed Supplementary Benefit, as if that made any difference. But the growth of unemployment and the tightening of the screw on working class conditions has changed the Supplementary Benefit claim from the exception to the rule. For millions of people and their families it is now not a safety net but their only life-line.

But the DHSS is no exception to the capitalist rule that everything must operate as cheaply as possible; the staff unions estimate that in London alone some 3000 more staff are needed to catch up with the backlog of claims.

Poverty and repression can be witnessed every day at the DHSS. on both sides of the counter. The claimants are often too bitter, the staff too harassed, to recognise it but they have a united interest in getting rid of a social system which must produce such miserable indignities.

Half way there

An article in the July 1987 issue of GDR Review — a glossy journal issued by the government of the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) — surprises but disappoints. It is by Professor Adolf Kossakowski, Chairman of the GDR Society for Psychology and deals with an offshoot of the GDR Peace Council called "Psychologists for Peace".

Dr. Kossakowski claims that from the work done they can prove that children are not naturally aggressive and war-minded; indeed, they have a deep desire for peace and a fear of war. They conclude that this is true of all age groups and that it is their duty to "activate the masses".

However, in activating people it is extremely important to make clear to them the real causes of war. the true targets against which they should address their fight. In the past and also today those circles with an interest in the arms build-up have exploited and continue to gladly exploit some theories advanced by certain psychologists, ethnologists and biologists in order to mask the true causes of war and to paralyse the forces for peace . . .

The myth that war is instinctive and that mankind is evil by nature makes it easier for states to pursue a militaristic policy, because it can be suggested to their peoples that militarism is a natural phenomenon . . .

However, I also consider it equally important . . . to point to the real, the economic and political causes of the arms build-up and the war preparations by the forces of aggression. Many scientists . . . are still of the opinion that both sides are to blame for the arms race . . .

. . . as scientists we have a duty to discuss with our colleagues the economic and political background behind the policy of aggression pursued . . .

But that, unfortunately, is where he ends and his omissions are at least as important as what he says.

Wars are not fought for principles but, as Kossakowski does mention, economic advantage. Wars are fought either to increase or protect spheres of influence and markets — American action in the Middle East and the Gulf and Russian action in the latter just now make that abundantly clear. The dictatorship of South Korea, Chile, El Salvador and, until quite recently, the Philippines, are acceptable to the Western Allies. In western political circles the invasion of Grenada by the United States was "OK", that of Afghanistan by the Russians was not.

So the Psychologists of the Council for Peace are right in saying that wars are fought for profits. However the profits made by the armaments manufacturers are not the cause of war but are due to the need for maintaining and increasing the profits of the capitalist class as a whole.

Eva Goodman

Greasy Pole: Poverty – Blair Speaks (2000)

Moore is less.

The Greasy Pole column from the January 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does anyone now remember John Moore, the cabinet minister who was once encouraged to see himself as the next Conservative Prime Minister? He started out as one of those people who enriched themselves by doing things like selling pounds for deutchsmarks for dollars back to pounds again. Having made his pile it seemed the natural thing to do, to find a nice safe Tory seat so that he could participate in arranging the system to ensure that people like him could get even richer.

It worked like a dream and after he got into Parliament his rise was meteoric (an appropriate word because he later burnt out and fell like a meteorite). With some cunningly obsequious interventions he locked himself into position as Thatcher’s favourite. He got to be a minister and then, when the two departments of Health and Social Security became merged into the huge, hugely spending, dreaded DHSS he was put in charge. There he introduced the Social Fund, a method of drastically reducing the money available for Special Needs grants. To emphasise how fit and dynamic he was we were regularly treated to repulsive photographs of him on his exercise bicycle or at work in his shirt sleeves. But this rich, energetic, ambitious man was really not tough enough. The stress of running the DHSS while scheming to take over the top job cracked him up so that at one cabinet meeting, to the open contempt of Thatcher and the discreet glee of his rivals, Moore practically collapsed. It was not long before he returned to the back benches. No one was sorry to see him go.

Speeches 

He would have been wise to leave it at that, to accept the cruel reality of politics and devote the rest of his life to his roses or his currency note collection. But he decided to have one last effort at climbing the greasy pole. He would make a controversial speech which, on the basis a bit of pre-determined research, would claim to challenge some accepted ideas about a social problem. It was natural that the problem should be poverty, about which he should have learned a little when he gave up playing the markets and took over the DHSS. He might have spoken about alleviating poverty but that would not have been controversial enough to attract attention. Instead he set out to prove that poverty virtually did not exist, that it was really not much more than the angle from which you viewed the statistics about slums, malnutrition, poverty-related diseases or whatever.

It was not a very clever speech and the attention it attracted was not the kind Moore had reckoned on. It was savaged by the poverty lobby and by his erstwhile rivals in the Tory Party. Deservedly, it sank into a swamp of contempt—like Moore himself, who was packed off to the House of Lords.

That nasty piece of history came to mind when Tony Blair, on a trip up north, used a recent government “analysis” of levels of poverty to cast doubt on the generally accepted notion that the problem is wider, sharper and more punishing in the north than in the south:

“I am determined to make all parts of Britain share in rising prosperity and that in all parts of Britain we tackle poverty.”

Of course we are accustomed to that phrase “rising prosperity”; we hear it a lot when ministers are doing their best to lower working-class living standards. It is intended to disguise the fact that millions of people are unfamiliar with any kind of prosperity and spend their lives trying to survive through various degrees of deprivation. The burden of Blair’s speech was that while there may be deep poverty in the north it also exists in the south; in both parts of the country there are patches where workers are relatively better off. The object, apart from asking us to accept an index which is self-evidently nonsense, was to persuade us that this government is, by some miracle, successfully grappling with the effects of the long term decline in heavy industries such as steel manufacture, mining, shipbuilding . . .

Objectors 

Blair’s speech was no better received than that made by Moore, all those years ago—which says something about the persistence of the problems of poverty whichever party is in power. Apart from the usual clutch of disappointed Labour MPs, whose concepts and principles are flexible enough to keep them in the party whatever their reservations about it, there were also other objectors who may be called more detached. Bill Midgley was one of them: this president of the North East Chamber of Commerce and one-time building society boss described the analysis used by Blair as a “whitewash” and accused ministers of being “highly selective . . . Anybody can play the selectivity game”.

Less selective is the material coming from places like Bristol University, where research undertaken before the last election showed that twice as many babies die before their first birthday in Glasgow and Manchester than in less impoverished areas. These are places where there are some four percent more children living below the official poverty line. One effect of this is that there are 1.5 percent more GCSE failures. A survey carried out jointly by the Office of National Statistics and the Institute of Psychiatry found that children from poorer families are three times more likely to suffer from some kind of mental disorder. And a little piece of what is sometimes dismissed as anecdotal evidence is that staff at a school in Sheffield have to keep a sharp watch on the weather because the building where they try to teach is so rotten that the roof could be ripped off by a strong breeze or collapsed by a heavy fall of snow.

These are symptoms of the poverty inseparable from the lives of all those who have to sell their working ability in order to live. In the scale of that social reality it does not matter whether poverty is more intense, more desolate, more degrading, in one part of the country than another. When Blair argues to the contrary he is simply trying to obscure a persistent fact of capitalist life. Wherever it exists, and to whatever degree, poverty is brutal and nasty; it wrecks peoples’ lives, it makes them ill, it drives them mad and it kills them. It was doing massive damage to working-class lives when John Moore was hoping to rebuild his career by concealing reality and it is the same now when Tony Blair is trying to strengthen his hold on power by the same cynical method.

Ivan

Running Commentary: Cheap at the price (1988)

The Running Commentary column from the May 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Cheap at the price

The latest figures for crime in London — or at least that part of it which the police get to hear about —offer encouragement to neither the hangers and floggers nor the carers and tolerators. Overall, recorded crime in the capital fell by four per cent last year although violence against the person (not the sort committed by the police) street robberies and other robberies rose by between 11 and 13 per cent. Parliament's refusal to re-introduce the death penalty, even with the offer of the then Tory MP Peter Bruinvels to be the public hangman in his off duty days, did not set London's killers on the rampage; murders fell from 210 to 195.

The Metropolitan Police, despite its self-image as the elite force compared to which the rest are bumbling wallies. manages a detection rate of only 16 per cent. As there must be an intrinsically high rate of detection for some offences, such as murder and rape, this means there is a strikingly low clear-up rate for other crime. Obviously, the Met. will not be in the running for the Sherlock Holmes Trophy for 1987.

The figures for London, like those for other areas, provide no evidence to support the claim from all types of reformers to have a policy for the elimination of crime. The hangers and floggers argue that harsh punishment would stamp out the problem, ignoring the fact that it did not work that way in the past, when the crank, the treadmill, the quarries and the Pentonville style of repression brutalised prisoners rather than reformed them. The do-gooders look for the cause in social or personal disabilities, blind to the fact that this social system must always produce such problems and they have no idea of what to do about that.

Crime is an aspect of capitalism's basic conflicts and inadequacies; while this society lasts it is inescapable. The property rights of capitalism — which is another way of saying its denial of access to wealth to the majority — are so comprehensive that it is practically impossible not to offend against them. With the majority denied free access to the wealth we have produced, while the privileges of possession are extolled as the ultimate social cachet, it is not surprising that there should be a widespread effort to grab some of the wealth in ways not legitimised by capitalism.

The privileged hold their position legally; the laws say that their right to the wealth and their right to exploit the rest of us must be protected and enforced through a system of police, courts and prisons. So every day courts throughout the land are crowded with people who have been restrained after offending against capitalism's laws, to be dealt with according to the whims and prejudices of whoever happens to sit in judgement on them that day.

This is a hugely cumbersome, hugely expensive, affair (it costs an average of around £250 a week to keep someone in prison — an experience unlikely to re-build their respect for capitalism s morality). But for the job it has to do — to assert, defend and emphasise the fact that this is a society divided into the exploiters and the dispossessed — it is cheap at the price.

Fortresses

Social Security offices, which have never been friendly places where one could enjoy a confidential, therapeutic discussion of one's financial embarrassments over a relaxed cup of coffee with a helpful counsellor, threaten to become like fortresses amid bedlam as the new DHSS regulations take effect.

The Thatcher government will always be remembered for the sleight of hand with which they have distorted the current reality of poverty. The unemployment figures, for example, can easily be reduced by drawing up regulations which force out-of-work youngsters into what the government calls training but what the youngsters call sweated labour. State benefits for the unemployed, the elderly, the sick and the disabled can be cut by rearranging the rules which govern them and then calling the whole thing by a different name.

So it comes to pass that what was once Supplementary Benefit is now Income Support; what was once a Single Payment is now a loan from the Social Fund. The intended effect, with time, is that many workers who depend on state benefits for their survival, will have much less to survive on.

Another effect — unintended but foreseeable — will probably be that violence against DHSS staff, already running at an alarming level, will get worse. If this happens, the government's response will be to call conferences where bureaucrats will gravely discuss the stresses which their underlings are subjected to; to fortify the offices even more; and to provide for stiffer punishment for those who. in their impoverished frustration, go for the staff, smash the windows, kick in the doors. . .

The government are hoping that charities will fill the gaps opened up by the new regulations. Some people may think this is taking Thatcher's version of Victorian morality too far; in any case what happens when the charities are unable to help? Will they too have to bolt down the furniture, install toughened glass, erect protective screens around their workers?

The loud protests which the poverty lobby launched against the new set-up was understandable, for benefit-dependent workers, at the lowest end of the poverty scale, need a cut in their payments like a hole in the wallet. In spite of their valuable work of research and indictment, the poverty lobby draw the wrong conclusion — that the workers' poverty is rooted in an inability to be employed and that it can be eliminated through higher state benefits.

Poverty afflicts the working class whether they are in work or out; it is an unavoidable consequence of the class ownership of the means of life. A working wage keeps a worker generally at the level of reproduction of their energy; not to be able to get a wage can mean falling below even that miserable standard.

This is the fundamental social condition which must be dealt with. Then the poverty lobby can stop pummelling the statistics — and the claimants can stop taking it out on the DHSS clerks.

Run out?

With the passing of time — with a widening waistline and narrowing achievements — Ian Botham has changed from everyone's Boys' Own hero into a rip-roaring public villain. Headlines no longer boast of his deeds with bat and ball on some sun-soaked cricket field; the preoccupation now is with his offensive behaviour in public places and fights in dressing rooms.

But of course Botham has always been what the media hacks love — a sporting character. Nicknamed Guy after the gorilla — he was always ready for pavilion japes like placing his hot spoon on some team mate's arm just after stirring his tea.

Most of his feats, which have been written into cricket history, have been inspired by Botham's all-consuming ambition always to be on the winning side. Now this sort of drive is among the most prized of personal attributes in a society which esteems nothing higher than a determination to get to the top no matter whose neck gets trampled on the way up. In industry, commerce and social standing the equivalents of Ian Botham receive respectful adulation while the rest are of little consequence.

Capitalism glorifies its heroes and heroines as examples to us all, as living proof that anyone who is an insignificant member of the working class has only themselves to blame for their situation. Of course the heroes and heroines sometimes misbehave — or rather behave in a way to be expected of someone under the constant stimulation of the media spotlight. But that need not be a disadvantage since it often serves to heighten public interest, sell more newspapers, push up the ratings and box office receipts.

It requires a super-powerful effort to resist these pressures — to act like an everyday worker while all the expectations of capitalism demand otherwise. That is why the entertainment and sporting business is littered with examples of the Ian Botham disease. the principal symptom of which is the realisation that headline-hogging behaviour has reached the depths of tedium.

This brings a pathetic conclusion to what set out as famously glorious. Botham's sacking by his cricket employers in Australia may have its repercussions in this country, for it is said that he is too disruptive an influence for any team to want to have him. Who would be to blame for this sorry end of the golden boy of English cricket? The man himself? Or the interests which depend on building up prima donnas in order to attack them for it?

Running Commentary: Royal parasites (1986)

The Running Commentary Column from the May 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Royal parasites

Two things were blindingly obvious in the first television reports on the engagement of Sarah Ferguson and Prince Andrew. The first was the total absence of even the feeblest note of dissension. It would have seemed, to a viewer from another planet, that the entire nation were ecstatic over the betrothal of these two brainless parasites. Not even the most cautious voice was allowed to suggest in the most tentative way that perhaps there might just be another point of view.

When so resolute and comprehensive a blanketing of opinion is practised by the state capitalist dictatorships of Eastern Europe, the media in this country react with a contemptuous scepticism. And this is, after all, democratic Britain where there is a free and equal opportunity for all attitudes to be expressed . . .

The second thing was the apparently boundless and seemingly invulnerable confidence of the couple in their own class superiority. What jolly fun, while the world is still being fed with pictures of the pitifully starving children of Africa, to tell everyone about this prince making you eat profiteroles at a banquet! How ripping, soon after a cold spell which killed so many old workers who could not afford to heat their miserable homes, to show which class you belong to by spending £28,000 on an engagement ring!

In the same news bulletin, the cameras visited a school where blind and deaf children are being taught to communicate with others. This is real, necessary, demanding work, performed by highly skilled people who, as far as anyone can under the bestial capitalist system, operate to an approximation of the morals which socialism will have — that human needs should be the only reason for human activity.

The relief from seeing this school was only partial; this brief hint of how a humane society will deal with its unavoidable problems was in all too sickening a contrast to what is happening now under capitalism, when human needs are the lowest priority. In a world infested with misery, overshadowed by a desperate peril, the media were preoccupied with the irrelevant antics of a useless couple wallowing in their class privilege to the point of disfigurement.

It could only make anyone concerned for the welfare of the human race seethe with anger for what is happening now and with impatience for what will happen in the classless future.

Parsimony

No, not houses to live in; not much-needed hospitals or schools — not even prisons. Street shelters are to be built for claimants in the queue at the offices of the DHSS. The Guardian (4 March 1986) quotes Peter Jones, branch secretary of the Civil and Public Services Association:

  Some days we have 200 to 300 people claiming benefit . . . Many people start queueing at 7am for the office to open. They often have to wait outside all day before they can be seen and if they arrive later than 10.30am they are too late to be served.
. . . Half the staff in offices are in their probation year. There is an 80 per cent turnover for clerical officers and a 100 per cent turnover among clerical assistants. Many staff are taking Valium because they can t stand it — others are turning to drink for relief. . .

However there are some in government circles who consider staff at the DHSS underemployed. The new Social Security Bill put forward by Norman Fowler and currently being examined by a Standing Committee of MPs has found a new job for them (Guardian 12 March 1986). To save government funds, instead of grants being made for the purchase of necessities such as furniture to people with savings less than £500. members of their families and even friends and neighbours are to be approached by the DHSS to ask if they are willing to lend the money.

Apart from the ethics of this exercise in parsimony, no thought seems to have been given as to how long this would take, how the already over-worked staff are going to find the time to do this, nor how it should be done. Will these good people be invited to attend the local DHSS office? Will they be visited or written to? How often will they be reminded that a reply is required? How long must the claimant wait before the DHSS pays out in the absence of a willing private lender? There is also the possibility that friends and good neighbours who have been helping in other ways might back off when they find that they are going to be pressurised into lending money which they have saved for other things or may not even have. Will they have a means test to establish if they can afford to make the loan? Who will decide who is to be asked? And of course it is most unlikely that those already on supplementary benefit would be able to repay the debt. And this is called Social Security . . . On the other hand, perhaps it could be called a return to Victorian values.

Class apart?

So, to the consternation of the leadership of at least one of them, the two main teachers' unions are inching towards some form of unification — in thought if not as yet in deed. About time too, some might add. But, given the circumstances, exactly what good will it do? Listen in on an average staff-room discussion of labour problems and you will shortly begin to wonder how it is that so many teachers can associate with so downmarket an institution as a trade union at all. (Indeed, since in at least three titles the terms "association" is preferred to "union" perhaps many teachers feel they do not).

For if there is any one weakness that strikes most fatally at the heart of genuine social understanding on the part of your average pedagogue it is what Karl Marx described as a false consciousness of class. This refusal to identify, consciously or subconsciously, with their fellow workers is presumably what enables so many teachers to troop unquestioningly into a hymn-and-prayer session every morning (how many other workers would put up with such rubbish?). This blindness helps them to pass off, with massive imbalance, the loaded "history" and social-scientific half-truths of our ruling class' approved texts while blithely castigating identical practices in the — so-called — communist world.

Ordinary workers though they may be, obliged as are any other wage-slaves to sell their skills to an employer in exchange for wages (sorry! salaries!), far too many of them lack the enlightenment to do other than snipe at manual workers and their union spokespersons. (Scargill is a very dirty word indeed in many staff-rooms).

What. then, is the answer? To start with, no comprehensive solution is possible given the continued existence of world capitalism However, teachers — indeed, any group of workers — can do little to alleviate the consequences of their own exploitation if they wilfully ignore their own class condition, preferring to hide behind a mask of "respectability".

Observations: Special needs? (1986)

The Observations Column from the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Special needs?

In capitalism it is money that determines whether or not people's needs are met. This principle applies to the "welfare state" as much as it does to the market for goods. But in the case of the welfare state it is the government which has the power to decide whose needs are to be met (through the allocation of resources) and at what level.

Take, for instance, draft regulations recently drawn up by the DHSS which will restrict the availability of single, or "special", needs payments to supplementary benefit claimants. At present single payments are intended to cover the cost of such essential household items as beds, cookers, heaters, basic items of furniture, and bedding. It is already extremely difficult to obtain this assistance. But the government now intends to make it even more difficult, through the new regulations which will exclude payments for such things as hot water bottles for the elderly and infirm, curtains, cleaning implements. light fittings and other basic household equipment. Certain claimants, such as squatters, will not be eligible for any such payments at all.

The reason given for the new restrictions is contained in a DHSS memorandum (Guardian, 10 June 1986) which states that "there has been since 1981 a rapid and continuous growth in single payments" and "in these circumstances the Government now proposes to bring expenditure back to around the 1984 level . . . and to ensure an orderly administration of the single payment system in the two years before the Government reform proposals take place". (The "reform" referred to is the abolition of single payments and their replacement with a "Social Fund" which will apply even more restrictive criteria to applicants).

So more people are clearly in need and are seeking extra assistance from the DHSS. What is the government’s response? Those needs are first defined as "special needs” and met on a highly selective basis, and later redefined out of existence. And this is called "social security” — part of the "welfare state".


Diagnosis

There is a man in Broadmoor, sent there for killing his wife, who is a brilliant scientist. At the time he was working in the development of guidance systems for inter-continental missiles. An obsessive man, he was liable to bouts of morbid jealousy. One day his wife could stand no more and left him. After a while he gave up his job and walked, brooding, the hundred or so miles to where she was living and there he killed her. The missiles he had been working on are each capable of wiping out hundreds of thousands of people. At his trial the judge listened to social workers, police officers and psychiatrists and it was decided that killing his wife proved that the brilliant scientist was ill and must be locked away in a hospital until he is better.


Fair cops

There is enough for the people of Greater Manchester to worry about in the colourful menace of their Chief Constable, James Anderton, without all this shock-horror-probe stuff about his deputy John Stalker.

Like most of these sordid affairs, the Stalker scandal becomes more outrageous and ruthless with the dragging out of one piece of evidence after another, which hint at corruption and intrigue at what is called A Very High Level.

It all began when Stalker was given the job of looking into the shoot-to-kill policy of the Ulster police, under which some embarrassingly innocent victims had been mown down. If Stalker took this seriously he is at variance with most of the people who have any experience of these matters, who expect as a matter of course that such enquiries are really designed to sweep a scandal under the carpet.

Whatever the truth of this, there is evidence of a campaign to undermine Stalker's standing as a high ranking policeman by showing him up as an associate of criminals and of other people with a reputation for sailing rather too close to the legal winds.

There are many people who have been arrested and harassed by Anderton's and Stalker's police who coknow what it means to be subjected to a sustained persecution. They will probably appreciate the irony in the fact that the same sinister techniques are said to be now applied to Stalker.

How outrageous a scandal is it? A social system based on the interests of a small but powerful minority cannot be open about much of what goes on in the cause of protecting the standing of that minority. Secretiveness (and the British government is noted for its obsessive concern with secrecy and an elegantly worded suppression of the truth) is endemic to capitalism. When it is demanded, the welfare — even the life — of an individual is of no account; even the most devoted servants of capitalism are expendable.

There was, to put it another way, never the slightest chance that Stalker would be allowed to lift the lid off the RUC.

Meanwhile, the workers of Manchester and of the rest of capitalist society should concern themselves with such events only to take what lessons they can from them. The police are employed as a part of capitalism's coercive, privilege protecting machinery. Their role is repression, of people and of the truth when they need to. They do this to sustain a social system which, even were it morally immaculate, without a taint of evasion or corruption, would still be unsupportable for its impoverishment, degradation and murder of millions of human beings.

We must get on with working towards the abolition of this sordid mess, leaving that odious bunch of thugs and twisters to grass each other up.