Ghost of Heath haunts Tory Party

Scan page 5

remains of former Tory leader Heath sprang embarrassingly to life.

Proving that four years under a political shroud have taught him nothing and allowed him to forget nothing, Heath acted as if driven on by some fiendish ancient curse.

Oblivious to the real world, he spoke in favour of the very policies which brought the downfall of his government in 1974-rigid wage controls.

Reporters from the Tory press, however, were plainly relieved at this opportunity to report something of interest from the otherwise mundane conference of the main capitalist party.

Prominence

The replies to Heath's utterances were reported with renewed enthusiasm, and the efforts of the Thatcher leadership to persuade TUC leaders and naive sections of workers that the Tories stand for free collective bargaining were given increased prominence.

Thatcher's winding-up speech appeared in parts to echo the recent declarations of TGWU leader Moss Evans, with its calls for "realistic, responsi ble collective bargaining, free Davis Joseph from government interference."

But there was no statement at any time that the Tories would scrap the existing 5% limit which already, by collaboration with union leaders, has been imposed on 500,000 workers.

And a careful reading of Tory leadership speeches throughout the week indicates clearly that government interference will in fact be intensified through the still more rigorous application of the monetary policies already threatened by Labour chancellor Healey.

There will be strict cash limits on public spending and target "rates of return" for the nationalised industries.

Shot-gun

Borrowing by private firms will be made more difficult and more expensive.

"Lame duck" firms will be speedily dispatched to a watery grave by government shotgun.

In this way, Sir Keith Joseph and others spelled out with relish, workers who demand "unrealistic" levels of pay would price themselves out of a job.

Most Tory leaders have now come to the view that this kind of approach stands more chance of enlisting the assistance of frightened reformist union officials and convenors than the setting of an open pay limit.

Viability

Because while union leaders have been known to challenge general pay 'norms' ПО bureaucrat has yet challenged the central reformist notion that capitalist industry must be allowed to make a "fair" profit, and be kept "viable"-if necessary at the expense of the workforce.

This is why Evans has been so careful to restrict the TGWU pay offensive to highly profitable firms such as Ford and BOC, while clamping down firmly against similar action in Vauxhall. All Evans' talk has, like Thatcher's speech, focussed on "responsible" bargaining-in other words wages determined by the profitability of the employer. This has not been lost on the Tory leaders.

Confrontation

With the prospect of a huge strike movement on pay possibly toppling Callaghan and throwing the Tories into office, the last thing Thatcher wants is to tie herself in advance to rigid pay controls which would produce an immediate confrontation with the working class.

Hence the confused talk of the Tory conference-and hence also the extraordinary low key of the speeches dealing with the next election.

No rallying cry was issued for the bringing down of Callaghan.

Instead, the voices of the Thatcher crew could scarcely be heard above the sound of their knees knocking at the prospect of possibly having to face up to a militant working class.

Thatcher Thatcher's own final sermon against class hatred summed up her concern that this party-not known for its conciliatory views -could soon be thrown into bitter confrontation.

"If it is wrong to preach race hatred. (said this leading advocate of racial hatred) why is it right to preach class hatred?"

But of course race and class hatred-above all a consuming hatred for the working class-is the very essence of Toryism, and had been as ever a marked feature of this year's conference.

Delegates had howled with anguish and rage at Sir John Davis declaring that sanctions could not yet be lifted against the Smith regime in Rhodesia.

Bring back stocks

They had trooped to the rostrum to demand the return of the death penalty, of the birch and the stocks, and declare their undying support for the police in its attacks on the working class.

They enthusiastically backed plans to increase pay for parasites sallied into attack after attack on the allegediy low productivity of the British working class, demanding an immediate end to "overmanning" , ruthless rationalisation of industry, "and an all-out assault on the social services, as well as tax cuts to further line the pockets of the rich.

Relic of past

But the irony remained in the vocal presence of Heath as an inescapable relic of the past.

Now regarded, astonishingly, as part of the Tory 'left' " Heath took office pledged to a series of equally draconian attacks on the unions.

But four years later, his Industrial Relations Act in tatters, his wage controls defeated and his authority extinguished, he was pitched out of office by the working class.

He remains for the Tory Party a living visible reminder that reactionary words are one thing: implementing them is another. A frightening sight indeed!

Chris Davies, Report Callaghan's former cabinet colleague Prentice, now recommended by the right wing 'Selsdon Group' to take over from James Prior as Thatcher's Shadow Employment Secretary.

Scan page 6

-FEND CT WORK * LI March in defence of Manchester Direct Works Builders on the march during their 1972 pay strike In a capitalist society, governments may use certain industries such By using taxation and credit restrictions they can make it difficult for workers to buy cars.

This has the brutal effect of throwing car and component workers on the dole; and reducing the demand for consumer goods. - But in two industries, construction and machine tools, the relationship of the industry to the economy is much more direct.

• These industries represent in concrete material terms the growth or decay of a capitalist economy.

If growth stops, construction is not just reduced but disappears completely.

Severity

This means that construction is affected by a crisis immediately and dramatically.

All the problems which confront workers in a crisis -unemployment, wage-cuts, attacks on agreed conditions and on union organisationoccur more suddenly and with more severity than in other industries..

Even in periods of relative stability for capitalism there is never the same stability in construction.

For a start there is a large seasonal fluctuation. The early stages of construction work are far more expensive to carry out in winter than in șummer.

• Because union organisation in construction has never been strong enough to force permanent employment, many building workers find themselves unable to get work in winter.

Casual employment Secondly, labouring in construction has remained one of the few areas of casual employment. The sight can still be seen in some parts of Birmingham of labourers queuing up at 7.30 in the morning waiting for sub-contractors to arrive and pick their labourers for the day.

So many workers do not know from one day to the next whether they will le ve a job.

Thirdly, because of tht position of construction as representing the growth of the economy, fluctuations in the rate of growth are magnified.

In the minor recessions of the 1950s and '60s, unemployment nationally reached 4%. In construction the peaks were about 10%. But these problems were as nothing compared to the last five years..

Previously, government policy was to increase public spending during periods when private invest- i ment faltered.

Immeasurable

This to a certain extent shielded the construction industry from the worst effects of crisis-ridden capitalism.

But now the crisis has reached the stage where in its attempt to "save capitalism" the Labour government has slashed public spending at a time when private • investment has collapsed.

The result is that 400,000 out of the two million jobs in construction and supplying industries have disappeared.

. Output has fallen by 30% in four years. The waste which this means to society in terms of unused skills, machinery and materials is immeasurable.

At the same time Shelter estimates that there are a million families without a decent home in Britain.

The construction industry is dominated by a few giant companies, with a multitude of tiny tinpot contractors and sub-contractors competing for what the giants don't want.

The giant construction firms make much in their PHOTO: John Smith IFT.

propaganda of the virtues of "competition" in ensuring efficiency and low cost construction.

But in practice the use of price rings and corruption in obtaining contracts is so widespread as to be a way of life.

Recent articles in Construction News have indicated that over most of the country supposed "competition" in the supply of ready-mixed concrete is in fact a farce.

The country is divided into spheres of influence. In each area all but one of the suppliers put in near identical tenders, and the remaining supplier puts in a slightly lower one.

Widespread

This enables prices and profits to be protected in times of slump.

The recent Bryant's case in Birmingham showed that Bryants were able to obtain £100 million worth of orders by bribing the Chief Architect and other officers of Birmingham City It is well known in the industry that these examples are not exceptions but widespread.

The projects which the construction giants go after are those where the use of large construction plant and automated techniques can bring big profits.

Houses and community buildings designed to a good standard are not generally of this type. Motorways and office blocks are.

This meant that in the early 1970s local authorities found it almost impossible to get tenders for their contracts.

The speculation in property values led to hundreds of thousands of construction workers being employed building the empty office blocks which now adorn the skyline of our cities, while many of those same workers had no department decent house to live in.

Now that this boom has ended, the construction giants are trying their best to have the direct labour departments .of local councils closed down so that they can take the work they turned up their noses at in previous years.

They are generally managing •tom maintain profits by taking contracts overseas and sacking workers in Britain-but even the Arabian building boom is running out of steam now.

Bourgeois economists argue that competition tends to balance supply and demand. What they neglect to say is that under capitalism there is no direct relation between social demand and economic demand i,e. between what people need and what they can afford to buy.

The problem of housing shows this very clearly. In a crisis, the giant construction firms leave their plant idle and lay off their worktorce, and use their financial reserves for speculation in property and stock markets.

Workers must demand that the books of these companies are opened to committees including building workers and other trade unionists.

They will find that in a crisis the construction firms cannot guarantee employment or provide the new homes, schools, shops and factories which • workers need That is the basis of a call for nationalisation of the One of the fondest arguments for competition is that it protects "quality" Nothing could be further from the truth.

Once a contract has been let-whether by fair means or foul-the object of a building contractor is to save as much as possible of

Scan page 7

SOCIALIST PRESS, Wednesdar workmanship is higher but even so they provide a cheaper service to local councils than contracting foundation for the control of a nationalised industry by the workers themselves.

It must go hand in hand

----- pull-quotes -----

as the motor industry as "regulators" of the