The British Struggle

In a New York Times editorial of February 10, American readers were given a view of the British general election both pompous and, for The Times, hysterical. I quote:

The issue is whether it is possible to replace the law of the jungle in industrial relations--the bitter confrontation among labor, management and often government of the kind that now threatens to paralyze Britain and that have recently disrupted the American economy--with a system and climate in which those inevitable tensions can be held within reasonable' bounds by mutual agreement in a unified national interest.... The job will be harder than ever given the bitter divisions created by the present confrontation; but it is an effort that will be watched with sympathy and interest by governments around the world.

For all its attempts at liberalism, The New York Times could not bring itself to discuss the more important question in the present election. It rightly terms the "Who Governs Britain" issue "superficial," but the question of the distribution of wealth was completely ignored. Surely the whole basis of industrial peace must be recognition by the majority of a nation that the distribution of wealth is fair, or moving towards fairness.

It is the general opinion among political analysts that the British general election was called as a result of the miners' strike. Once the miners refused to put their claim before an independent board, the argument goes, the government had no alternative but to reinforce its authority with a renewed mandate from the electorate. Given that if the present government wins, it will settle with the miners and give them what they want--a fact which nobody, even in Conservative circles denies--then the issue of "Who Governs Britain" will be shown to be stupid. All that one can say is that the Conservatives would prefer to settle with the miners at the beginning of a five-year period of office than near the end of their present term. Prime Minister Edward Heath has already lost one clash with the miners, two years ago, and in view of his "get tough with the unions" stand, he dared not give in again.

I believe, however, that the Conservatives called the election before it became so obvious that they cannot run the economy, and they would have been trounced in an election taking place this fall or next spring. The miners' strike was just a convenient issue on which a victory might be obtained. Under present government policy, by the fall, the balance of payments problem in Britain will be catastrophic. Inflation, which has been sky-rocketing throughout the last four years, will get worse, not better, and the point has now been reached where the standard of living is falling in Britain. Given that the Tories could not resort to their pre-election handout budget, the only way they could command support was to make the election into a battle about authority, the safety of Britain, and the survival of democracy.

Before I go any further, it might be useful to list a few characteristics of British politics which will clear the way for the more important part of my argument.

1. The British Conservative party represents business interests, is largely financed by them, and therefore opposes any improvement in the standards of ordinary people which might endanger any position of privilege held by those likely to vote for the Conservative party.

2. The Labor Party is largely financed by the trade union movement, in parallel with which it grew. It favors economic equality in society but is laboring under the difficulties of having to manage a "mixed economy"--that is, an economy in which some industries are nationalized and some are not.

3. Although this appears to split Britain down the middle, government by consensus is possible and is the rule rather than the exception. The requirements of a mixed economy and consensus in government usually forces a Conservative government in power to move to the left, and forces a Labor government to move to the right.

4. The reason why this election is unusually bitter is that the consensus has broken down completely.

The present Conservative government is the most right-wing that Britain has seen since before the First World War. It is the first since 1910 to redistribute wealth "upwards" rather than "downwards." It is the first government this century to launch a determined and vicious attack against organized labor, and it is the first government since the Second World War to abandon completely the unwritten law of consensus in British politics.

Although this breakdown is apparent if one examines Conservative oratory and intentions, it is more apparent still in a concrete, economic sense. There is no doubt that Britain is in the middle of yet another economic crisis, but this time the Government has been holding down wages by statutory control, while prices have gotten out of hand. Poor people are beginning to suffer a decline in their standard of living, but taxation of the rich has not increased and has, in some cases, decreased. The totally unnecessary impostion of the three-day work week has hit manual and semi-skilled workers with unemployment, and has cut the pay of those who have retained jobs. Those earning monthly salaries have not been affected and, needless to say, though the industrialists grumble about bad trading prospects, they still live a very comfortable life. In the past four years the gap between the rich and the poor in Britain has grown wider.

Had trade unions allowed the government to carry out its "lame duck" policy, by which Heath decided not to support industries in debt no matter how important they were to an industrial region, the gap would now be a yawning chasm. As it was, the trade union activists--so hated by Heath--managed to keep some industries open by the strength of their protests. In spite of this success, the unions have had a terribly difficult time with a government that sees labor as fulfilling a profit function rather than a social function.

The problem of economic efficiency and equality and of industrial peace and industrial production, is, as The New York Times rightly says, one which every industrial nation will have to solve. A Conservative government, if elected, will make great efforts, no doubt, to create economic efficiency in the most ruthless and primitive way, not caring too much about unemployment as long as that does not mean social unrest. In a short-term manner, the problems may be solved--the balance of payments might just come right--but the problems in the long term will be even worse, the inequality and bitterness will be even greater.

The biggest disadvantage under which the Labor party suffers at present is its handling of the British economy while it was in office between 1964 and 1970. Everybody agrees the Tories have done badly, but the British press is trying to perpetuate the myth that Labor did even worse in their attempts. The legend that Conservatives always handle the economy better than Socialists is only true in as much as the economy being handled is more capitalist. than socialist. It is true that Labor left office with rising prices and rising unemployment, but had the government been re-elected, it would never have let the economy get in its present shape, even if correcting the economy would have meant increased taxation.

Most of this article, I admit, has been an attack on Tory policy, and has not spoken in much detail about the Labor alternative. Underlying my political jousting, however, there is deep philosophical commitment to socialist policies for one simple reason.

By its very nature, Conservatism is no policy at all. It is an attempt to preserve the status quo with as little tampering as possible, and its concern is largely short-term in anything it undertakes. If equality is to be achieved with consensus in government, Britian needs a government with a policy, and a government which is willing to supervise the transition from capitalist mayhem to a more controlled and equitable society. I do not believe that capitalism will collapse tomorrow, but too many individuals in Britain and elsewhere are being knocked over and trampled upon every time the sick beast lashes out in an attempt to preserve its balance. The sicker the system, the more vicious will be the measures needed to make people heed its howling.

Kevin Carey is a graduate of Cambridge University where he was president of The Cambridge Union, and editor of Varsity, the Cambridge University newspaper. He is now a Knox fellow in Kirkland House.