T present a fog of confusion en-
velops the discussion on an incomes policy. Some see it as a means for securing a more equitable distribution of the national product, while others — especially businessmen and financiers — regard it as a cunning way to ensnare workers, getting them to moderate their wage demands and to tilt the national income even more favourably to Capital. It is for that reason that I argue the struggle for a socialist incomes policy should be linked with a reaffirmation of Clause Four of the Party’s constitution. This tactic has the advantage of starting the battle from ground already conquered. At the same time, it places our opponents at the maximum disadvantage: they are unlikely to want to re-open the old wounds inflicted on the Party by Hugh Gaitskell’s attempt to drop Clause Four. Yet, if they don’t disavow the constitution, it will take mental gymnastics of Olympian standards to reconcile the present incomes policy with securing “for workers by hand and by brain the full fruits of their industry”. We are now in the resolutiondrafting season of the year, and I would suggest our resolutions to the Labour annual conference should incorporate some of the following points: I. that we call upon the Labour Government to adopt an incomes
policy that is openly and avowedly
socialist, which acknowledges that 2
per cent. of the community owns 50
per cent. of the wealth, and strives
to remedy this gross inequality by
applying the principles embodied in
Clause Four.
2. that an essential pre-requisite for
any discussions about an incomes
policy should be a knowledge of
what precisely people’s incomes are,
and therefore a Labour Government
should immediately bring in legisla-
tion that opens the books to trade
union inspection. Then the income
of capitalists, as well as workers, will
be equally well known. How can
George Brown allay suspicion among
the rank-and-file if he does not give
them the full facts?
3. that the Labour Party and Gov-
ernment should use Prices and In-
comes courts to expose the anti-
social grip that monopolies already
have over large sections of the
economy. The court could be used
to focus public attention on such
scandals as the fact that sparking
plugs, costing sixpence to produce,
sell at five shillings; that a bar of
soap, production cost 17d., sells for
tod, or more; that the TSR2, sup-
posedly to cost £200 million, is likely
to cost £700 million. Where mono-
polistic restriction has raised prices
to the sky, Labour could receive
popular acclaim by taking the indus-
tries concerned into public owner-
ship and reducing prices.
—Raymond Challinor
;
‘
THE WEEK — March 10, 1965 Soft Boards For Lords N Britain, where a company’s list of directors often reads like a tear sheet from Burke’s Peerage, many a titled tycoon sits on more boards than he can count. Lord Boothby, who is one of this happy breed. himself (he lias “eight or nine” directorships), explained last week just what directors do in return for adding prestige to corporate letterheads, “No effort of any kind is called for,” he told an audience of Yorkshire clubwomen. “You go to a meeting once a month in a car supplied by the company. You look both grave and sage, and on two occasions say ‘I agree,’ say ‘I don’t think so’ once, and if all goes well, you get $1,440 a year. If you have five of them, it is total heaven, like having a permanent hot bath.”