Action Programme for Health Workers

©)

Editorial

This pamphlet is a plan of action for fighting the Tories, or indeed any government that places profits before working vDeople's needs. * plan of action for health workers could not be more timely. Our defeat in the pay struggle last year has been taken by the Tories as a sign of weakness. The confusion caused in our ranks by the irresolute leadership of Gickerstaffe, the late Slbert Spanswick, and Charlie Monnet have emboldened the Tories.

Over the last four years they have wanted desverately to cut the oublic sector, including the NS, to the bone. They have not done that yet. Our resistance to their cuts has been one factor in slowing them dovn. nother has been the staggeringly high costs of mass unenployment. Nov that they are in with a big majority, they will become more ruthless in attacking the health service. They have nade their intentions fairly clear. "ormer health ainister Gerard Vaughan said that a free health service was both ‘undesireable and unrealistic'. This is why the Tories have been putting the squeeze on “Vealth ‘uthorities through cash linits. This is why they have been holding cown health workers' pay, leaving 49% of us below the official poverty line. This is why they have increased prescription charges by 690. and introcuced charges for overseas users of the NUS. Of course in 1979 the Tories denied they would increase prescription charges or introduce any new ones. They lied. Wow they are lying again. They say they have no intentions of inplementing the Think Tan<'s reoort on dismantling the NS. They say they will not completely privatise the health service. They say they will not make further cuts. ''e confidently predict that they will do all of these thinas and nore besides.

The Tories' plans for orivatisation were leaked during the June

1923 election canozign. They included:

*The extension of the private sector into the geriatric, long stay, convalescent, »ost-ooerative, and terminal care spheres. ‘They vill encourage the NUS to use private hospital srenises, equionent, and staff. :

‘They will introduce private sector investment into the NHS on orofitable for the private sector. Tor example, “%JP4 has bought a machine that removes «kidney stones for St.Thomas! Sospital, London. °'JP1 is thereby allowed to use it for a quarter of the time the NS does. “ut the cost of use for a cuarter of the time is £1°64 million. 2UP4 is only baying 21°95 million. The {iS is subsidisnng its use for private work to the tune of half a million pounds!

"NHS premises, equipment and staff will be made even more

available to private hospitals which contract services from the

NHS.

The government will encourage the NHS to sell to the private

sector hosoitals, wards, and land with the guaranteed access

to all NHS hospital facilities for people treated in private

wings. ‘

“Private sector managers - to Manage day beds to begin with - will be put on the management boards in hospitals.

“Staff accomodation vital to many nurses, doctors, and other staff is to be sold off to property sharks to be run at a ‘commercial rate .

In addition to all this Geoffrey “lowe has stated that in the late

1989's there will have to be massive cuts.

— \

The Tory Onsk lgught

The last Ccecade has seen > new period of caditalist crisis onen up.

In the 1959's and 1369's successive Tory governments insisted that workers ‘had never had it so good. *inimal unemployment, substantial imoroveaents in wages, the National 'lealth Service -

a connonent of the 'social wage' - were all: cited as evidence for this clain.

The gains that were made in that period - including the NS - have proved to be temporary and, in real terms, very shallow. They were the crumbs from the table of a relatively stable canitalist system. ith the onset of canitalist instability in the 1979's, even the crumbs are no longer forthcoming. In fact, many of them are being taken out of our mouths.

“lected on the oronise of tax cuts - a promise which in itself implied the need to cut public services - the Thatcher governnent have been hell-bent on savagina the 'social wage'.

The NS has been a prime target. Mot only is the MHS an expensive iten of state exosenditure, being one of 'estern ‘urove's biggest enoloyers, it is also an ideological affront to the ruling class. ortthen, the market >dlace should be allowed to extene into all spheres of life, including that of health care.

'free' ‘ie. atid for by taxes) stste-provided health service, even one as linitec =s the MS , is for the? an expensive luxury which »orcers should not be allowed to have. Sy their attacks on the NS, the ruling class, through the Tories, are attenpting to solit na into 2 section which they can not avoid daying for, the so~called Cinderella services for the elderly, the nentally ill, ane a section thst can be opened ud to massive exploitation by Drivat2 1edicine. “ven where they co have to spend state money, they will try to ensure that a larg2 dSroxortion of it fines its way back into the pockets of their friends - the bosses ~- through contracting-out.

The Tory attacks are being wagec on several fronts - blatant cut-backxs in services: income restrictions for the workforce: ane concessions to the orivate sector, through orivsatisation and »rivate necicine.

ot SES

Tory “ealth Service ministers are fond of claining that they have in fact naintainedr, anc even exvanded, health service exovenciture. The claim is spurious. They have clained, for instance, that under their 1972+1933 administration, 45,999 extra nurses have besn employed. ‘“hil= it is true that sever2l thousand nurses heve been endloyedc, they have not adced to or. indrovede uzon the overall level of service. The extra recruitment wes to compensate for the recuction of the nurses' working week to 37's hours and to fill gaps that existed in the hospitals. .eanwhile there are still staff shortages anc thousands of nursing staff on the cole.

The Tories claimed to have expanded the N“S between 1373/7) and 1983/84 by 7% plus 9°7:. efficiency savings, the latter having to

be found from within existing authority budgets. Despdite this increase in spending - and the figures are open to debate - it has not been enough to xeed ud with the changing demancs on the I45.

“s a result, despite the claims for expansion, cuts in services are

oe

very real.

Since 1379, 192 hossitals have been forcec to close and thousands 1aore beds have disaopeared. * similar number of hospitakb are still facec with the axe. Over the years, numerous faniliar names have disappeared. In Sheffield, two major hospitals have closed, along with several smaller units. In London, Hounslow "“ospital and St.Georges, “lyde Fark Corner, have been followed by, anong others, St.%enedicts.e In many areas new hospitals are opened only at the expense of others - the new Telford hospital will only be onened if several others are closed - or are not opened at all, because it is claimed there is no money to run then.

The cut=backs also show up in the waiting list figures. Since the beginning of 1382, 147,999 have been added to the waiting list for sdmission, which now stands at a staggering 735,999.

‘nother cut in the service is shown by the 699. increase in the orescription charges-from ~%) to £1°49.

The Tories have inolenented their cuts by means of the cash-limnit systen. “y imoosing 4 ceiling on the incresse in spending by istrict #ealth ‘uthorities and because costs have invariably risen sy more than the 'standard' rate of inflation, because of increasing hiaoh technology anc the super-nro*its of the drug incustrics, for example, authorities have been literally s7zueezec into cuts to st=y within their budgets.

™n relation to this, a former Tory health minister , Gerard Vaughan, made the effects of cash limits absolutely clear

‘Cash linits are saranount once the yesr starts.

They taxe precedence, once they are set for the

year, over the volume; that is why we have the

ahenomenon callec squeeze.....-If anything is to

give, it is the volume. So the half percent {ie.

1389-31's promised real growth -':?) I agree,

would be the margin that would be scueezedc if the

cash linit were not adecuate. TWic reslity of allthis -ts- clear 10 sees.- in 1987; Oxford: and arte health authorities sroduced plans that would have reduced the NHS to > level that was less than that necessary for accident 2nd emeraency cover. In Oxford, the pnlans incluced having just one >ecident and energency centre per county, soves towards day surgery one 74 hour neternity care, 2nc the charging of patients who had only recently arrived in the region.

Just as obscene vas the closure of St.Janes Hospit2l in South “ales. The Heslth “uthority soent £1 million modernising it. The scueeze then took effect and the same Health “uthority paid £95,959 to Pisnantle the hospital.

Yet, vith 2=1ll this and more, there were some who felt that the Tories viere not persuing this strategy with enough vigour. ‘aller Goldsmith of the Institute of Directors spelled this out;

The greatest failure of the Thatcher govern-

ment snc that giving greatest concern to its

business sup>Sorters is the fact that it has

oroved unable to reduce the 45. of Gross

National Procuct consumed by the sublic

sector.

5.

This is the sort of advice. the Tories are only too eager to resoond to, by cutting to the bone the existing service.

PMC, So SaOee oy . “ats do not only hit beds, buildings and jobs in the NHS. They also hit the wage pacxets of health workers. The Tories have consistently used the cash limit system as a.pjublic sector incomes policy, holding cown - and in real teras,cutting - the wages of the wor~ force. ‘here the threat and fear of redundancy has warded off high Day rises in the orivate sector, cash li:its have been used in the public services, including the NS. ‘“s the Yeosartnent of “moloynent Gazette made clear in June 1732;

The doubling of unendloyment Guring the last

two years has held wages in the private

sector to about 17” below what they otherwise

would have been....-Incomes policies are

clearly crucial in the public non-trading

sector.

The NYS is not only one of the largest enpdloyers in the country.It is also one of the lowest paying enployers. Of the 177,999 ancillary. staff, ?5° are still on a basic wage of £77.14 for a 490 hour week. The wse of cash limits and two year deals as well as varying offers to different sections of the workforce were all designed to keep things that way.

POLVATISSTION

In the last tvo years, the enohasis of the Tory attacks has shifted towards privatisation - that is, insurance based medical care in pay-beds and private hospitals and, more recently, contracting out - ane the use of the charity sector and voluntary organisa-~ tions.

In 1974, there were %.3 million subscribers to private health schemes, such as 5UPA and PPP. sy 1978, this had reached 2.4 million. Rut in 1981, the number had rocketed to 4.1 nillion. The

rate of growth in 1989/81 had been 77.5: and if this rate were to continue, 1° aillion people would be subscribing by 1°85.

Virtually all occupational based health schentes are already financed privately and private hospitals are mushrooning at the expense of the NHS. “ithin the NHS itself, there still exist the notorious pay beds, which should have been »shased out under the last Labour administration, but which have been added to under the present regime. One of the earliest acts of the Thatcher administration was to abolish the ‘ltealth Services “oard, which was supposed to oversee the phasing out of pay beds.

‘lowever, as a result of the Tories' Yealth Services ‘ct, the orivate sector is being alloved to feed off the N15 even more.

‘n attenpt to build a private hospital on MS grounds in " anstead vas justified by its sponsor thus ‘ie share,the opinion that the concept of the

integration between the independant sector

and the NHS, which is being oromoted by so

many members of this government and others,

represents a major step towards achieving

a harmonious integrated health service.!'!

The entrepreneurs who trade in illness are growing more confident under the protective wing of the Tories.

Socialists object to private medicine, not just because of the inegualities which it produces - Thatcher's private operation, at 2699, for varicose veins, during the 198° pay cispute is a damning example. ‘‘e object as well, because private medicine exists at the expense of the MHS. The private sector could not exist without some form of NHS.

Jneer the Tories, an ‘integrated health service ' has been encouraged. “hat this has meant in practice has been private hospitals using NIS equipment - particularly for diagnostic technigues - and using the emergency services; health authorities are being encouraged to use private facilities for NHS patients, at a cost; and there has been the continued poaching of staff who have been trained at the expense of the state. *11 of this has increased and will further increase under the Tory administration.

“rivate hospitals have developed alongside the pay beds that are Sased in the hospitals. ‘fter all, patients who are prepared to aay cash, or through an insurance scheme to be treated in a private hospital, may, from time to time, find it beneficial to slip into a hospital bed, where the nore extensive back-up facilities can be made use of. These beds have been used by full-time PUS consultants, who can nov spend 19° of their time coing orivate vor«, without loss of salary - consultants, who will have a finger, or hand, in the orivate pie.

To enable patients to take advantage of orivate medicine, the insurance schemes have been given a substantial boost, with private subscribers being given tax concessions and, for example, pay deals, wh ch incorporate membership of these schemes. In 19827, in the aiddle of the pay dispute, the Government offered the civil servants such a deal.

“hile hospitals have been closed down everywhere, the private sector has developed rapidly. %etween 1°) and 159 acute care private hospitals exist in 3ritain and the number of private beds is orobably around the 19,999 mark. The expansion of the private sector, which the Tories hope will eventually relieve the ruling class of the to fund the acute service, has been acconnanied by a 2arallel growth in the charity and voluntary sector.

Voluntary wor has long been part of hospital life, but mainly in the areas of supplementing basic care. “osnpital Leagues of ‘riends have visited patients, provided then wit entertainnent and arranged flowers, although they have, from time to tine, overstepped the acceotable lim ts. The Tories have shown, however, that they envisage 1 @ifferent role for volunteers in the future. Their document, 'Care in the Community ' proposes transferring responsibility for the elderly, nentaliy subnornal and ‘nentally ill, to the local authorities, where care would be supplemented by voluntary organisations and, with the complete return to Victorian values, the family. ‘ith ever increasing squeezes on local authority budgets, it should be clear that the role of volunteers will be extended.

Tory "lome Secretary, ‘william “thitelaw, announced that; ' we must encourage people to take up voluntary service.' former Yealth

inister, Patrick Jenkin, declared that, ' we must create vigorous involvement '.

The charity sector is also booming, with appeals to the public

7° °

.for money coming from almost every hospital. In Sheffield, for

instance, almost every hospital has an appeal, which is either on the go or just recently completed. In that one city alone, there are apoeals for money for a special care baby unit,a day centre for cancer patients, a bocy scanner, a gymnasium for paraplegics and

a laundry for patients' personal clothing. ‘411 of these should be being provided through state spending.

The craven propagandists for the Tory Party in the media have fillec the T.V. screens with pictures of happy hospitals, financed by charity, while the NHS, particularly during disputes, is given nothing but bad press. The opening of a priwate childrens' hospital in Oxforeshire by a nun was given massive airolay, while at the same time, plans were being finalised for the closure of Tadworth YJospital, part of the Great Ormond Street Hospital for children. That has been the logic of Tory strategy.

The final string to the Tory bow centres around contracting outthe hiving off of laundry, catering and domestic services to private contractors.

“Sour years of Tory rule have seen them advance rapidly along their chosen oath. Their goal is clear. They want to create a two-tier systen: national health system, with barely enough funds to cope with the old and terninally ill and run by private contractors: “nd a bouyant, profitable private sector to deal with those who can afford to subscribe.

The Principal ‘inance Officer at the DYSS recently expressed the situation in a nutshell;

'tvie would have a second class health service in ten years. ''

_abour’s Record

Since the Labour Government established the MHS in 1348, they have always oroucly claimed the service as one of its greatest achievements. However, lixe the Tories, Labour Governnents have repeatedly attacked the NHS and have prevented it fron becoming the conorehensive, free service that was promised. Indeed, when the WHS was established, ‘neurin evan, the 'left' Labour :‘inister responsible, had already compromised with the fat-salaried consultants of the British “edical “ssociation.“nd this was at a time when Labour had a huge parliamentary majority and massive public sup Dort for the new Health Service. Bevan, nevertheless granted to the consultants the right to conduct private medicine within the NHS itself. Since then, Labour has slowly, but steadily, retreated before the demands of the profiteers and privateers.

‘abour were the first to implenent prescription charges. “nd Labour remains comnitted to maintaining the private sector in medicine, as 2 permanent challenge to the NHS. The most they will concede now is that the private sector should be kept entirely senerate from the “NS. This pledge was made in 1°72- ' | edicsl need shall determine the right to a hospital bec. This can only be cone by the total separation of private practice from the ‘iealth Service. !

Desoite the setting up of the Heal h Services toard in the mid 1379's, sudzosedly to overse: the phasing out Of pDay-beds, and a4 noisy campaign by NUP’, the reduction in pay-beds during the ilson/Zallaghan administration was barely noticeable.

‘hen the 3111, which set un the Wealth Services “oard, was going through Farlianent, Lord Goodman wrote to the 'Times' ° “- If this 2ill is aporoved, I believe it provides a secure base for dnrivate medicine and a springboard for its continuation and, I hope, enlargement. '!

The National Health Services “ct was a boost for private nedcicine. It set no cate for the phasing out of beds, there was no restriction on »orovident association advertising anc there were only weak restrictions on dDrivate hosnital developnent. ‘hile legislating for the ohasing out of pay beds, !abour also guarranteed the right to orivate nedicine.

NUP*. had demandec that by 1°76, all oay-beds should be phased out. 2ut between 1977, when the first reductions were made, and 1979, tess than half of the 4,444 psy beds were cut. “t the beginning of 2275, ©,319 pey beds remained. Given that the governnent oversavy the phesing out of mainly under-utilised beds - some 1,099 - it can be seen that queue jumping was still rife after nearly five years of Labour rule.

The maintainance of the private sector was only one of the ways in which Labour attacked the NHS. * more dramatic attack came when the Government bowed to the pressure of the ruling class and the

— ~ °

Instead of defending the welfare state as socially useful and beneficial to the working class, the Labour Government under Call-

aghan ( and first Jilson ) tried to regenerate the national economy by boosting the private capitalist sector, in part at the ex-

pense of the public sector. In 1331, a similar response had been

made by a Labour Government, when it cut uneaployment benefits as a way of tackling econonic problems.

The major step on this path was the November 1974 mini-budget, which aimed to boost company profits. Companies received tax relief on the increase in the value of their stocks, which had risen sharply with inflation. The relief was back-dated, and anounted to £%.5 billion. The following month, price controls were relaxed to boost profits further, and retail prices went uo by 1%.

These handouts to the bosses meant that there had to be further borrowing to finance services. 8ut this was a short-term solution, which to served to increase pressure from the banks on the Gov-~ ernment to cut borrowing and to cut the Public Sector "#orrowing Requirement {PS3R) in particular. The Government duly responded in the spril 1975 budget, which increased taxation on consumer spending and cut the public sector funding by £1 billion. It also contained the first announcement that public sector spending would

be curbed by introducing cash limits on the amount of money available, so that if costs and wages rose above a certain level, then services and jobs would have to be cut. So Labour has the ignoninious distinction of having introduced cash linits.

The rest of 1975 saw a consolidation of this approach. 4“ wage limit deal was cooked up with the TUC for civil service workers in July, against the background of a series of runs on the pound. Local authorities were told to budget for no increases in 1976-77.

Labour had set the ball rolling; profitability was given pride of place over worxers' needs: taxation was used to shift the burden from capital and onto workers and consumers; new controls were put on public spending, while relaxation of controls on companies, and handouts to then were the order of the cay for the bogeses. Then, in 19795, the Labour Government went even further. The International vonetary “und, the world's most powerful parasites, dictated that 3ritain was living beyond its means. The solution to this problem was to slash public expenditure. Labour Chancellor, and arch bosses man, Vennis Sealey, willingly obliged. "Yuge cuts packages were announced in 1376: the projected spending for 1377-78 was to be cut by £3.65 billion, and that for 1978-79 by £4.5 billion. Included in these cuts were specific targets for eliminating jobs in local councils and the civil service. The implementation of the new cash limits system also began in 1976. “*urther administrative curbs were imposed, including using the contingency reserve - formerly just a sum used to cover unforseen needs - as a Treasury ceiling on any political decisions to improve services. The control system was much strengthened by this; public services were firnly subordinated to the confidence of the financiers. The priority for public services was now the reduction in the PS3%.

The cuts had the intended effect;by 1378-73, the last year of Labour's office, non Gefence spending was 8%” lower than 1375-76, - excluding social security benefits, which had gone up by 18% because of unenployment. Civil service jobs had falien by 15,9909, food

subsicies recuced and rents and charges increased.

The HHS also suffered terrible blows under Labour. 3etween January 1977 and October 1973, Labour approved the closure or transformation of 714 hospitals ( transformation, involving the loss of beds) Of their programme, 143 closures/ transfornations went ahead. They approved the actions of an Area Health *uthority- organised police

a0,

20b, which broke up the “Younslow “lospit3l work-in. The hospital Looxed as though a bonb had hit it after those thugs had finished. Labour approved a progranne that, in London alone, 31. of its beds would disappear. £139 million would be cut from the budget for Lon don.and °4,548 jobs would go. { Under The *xe. Pamphlet by NUP&.) After 35 years of the NUS, the number of hospital beds in 3ritain had fallen! *t the end of Labour's last reign, the number was cown to 9.3 becs per 1,900 people. In 1249, the figure stood at 19.3 Her 1990+

Throughout the 1370's, cash limits were used to control and limit the oublic sector and after 13975, programnes were never again drawn up on the basis of what the services needed.

On the pay front as well, Labour attacked NUS workers. Its pay limits differentially hit the low paid. Its final 5” pay limit was a joke, given the already apdallingly low wages in the NHS. The Callaghan Government steadfastly refused to lift health workers fron the poverty line, by granting a mininum wage. The compromise of comparability did nothing to achieve 2n end to low pay, as wage levels tocay clearly shov-..

These policies were not in Labour's 13774 election manifesto. They were the result of Labour's willingness to accept the priorities of the I“ rather than the neecs of the worxers vho had elected them to office. «hen “Iealey went, can in hand, to the Ii.F, they laid down conditions for their loan. These were to be cuts and 3 governnental comnitment to keep within specified targets for the PS3% and money sup-_ly in general. That was another 'first' for Labour. They; not irs Thatcher, get the dubious credit for introcucing monetarist policies in the %ritish economy. They were not just unwillingly forced into this by the Ii? - they had made the Gecision a-year earlier in giving precedence to the requirements of the finance markets over political conitments. Nor were policles changec when the need for i: * supv0rt for Sterling was over. he end of 1377, when the loan was repaid, ilealsy announced he

ma 1a be sticking to the pvolicy guid2lines, laid down by the [:.°.

Oct

wou

uabour's record then, is not one of it defending the NHS from cuts. .t best it is a record of Aaintaining the status quo. “t worst

{ the 1976 cuts) it is one of attacking the service, every bit as vicio sly as the Tories.

Why Labours Tory Attack NHS

The NUS was established in the aftermath of ‘orld “ar Two-in response to enormous pressure from working class people. The involvenent of millions in the war, not only in the armed services but also, and especially for women, on the home front, produced a great radicalisation of the ponulation. People remembered the post first ‘orld Jar swindle of a land fir for heroes to live in. The overwhelning nood was No return to the Thirties . iabour promised to ‘win the oeace for the millions who had suffered during the war. That is why they won the 1245 general election. ‘ orkers' votes threw out the great statesman and victor Churchill. The -trades unions had mushroomed during the war. The bosses and the Tories were ademoralised and divided. The NHS - part of a liberal welfare systen designed by peook like Lord Yeveridge - was carried through with relatively little resistance. This reform, plus the reforms in education, the nationalisation of public services and the housing programnes kept wor<ers radicalism within the bounds of what “enn correctly c2lls ‘-elfare Capitalisn . The onset of the long boon in the late 1949's, which was to last until the late’ 1°6%'s, provided the basis for the maintenance of this systen by Tabour and Tory governments alike. The idea of a ‘social “age made ud of free health treatment, social security, low-cost housing and subsidised oublic services was widely canvassed by the Labour ight as having renlaced the need for socialism or nationalisation. Capitalis™, they sai , was an old-fashionec concept.

2ut below the surface capitalism's profit rates were falling - anc Sritish capitalisa's rates more than those of its rivals. The concessions of the post-1345 years, which the bosses felt they

could afford in the fifties and sixties, came to be an intolerabl2 burden eating-up their profits via taxation in the 1979's and 1989's. Thus the NHS becane target No.1 for the grab-

bac< brigade that %ritain's bosses put at the head of the Tory party 2ut as they never tire of saying, It all started under Labour.

‘hy have both Labour and Conservative governnents attacked the Nis; which is so imoortant for our health needs’ To answer that question you have to out the NHS in the context of the wider society. that pays for it and uses it. The economy in this country is capitalist. Canitalism is an economic system in which the production of goods, the supply of services, and so on is carried-out in order to make profits, and not in order to advance what people need. Jnder this system a tiny part of the population ovn the factories, constructic.. companies, the money to invest etc., and therefore these peoole - the capitalists - get the bul of the profits. That is what thay are in business for. In fact in S3ritain today, 1. of the population ovns 50. of the wealth. 7. owns @4- of it. i4nc less than 5. ovn more than 95° of all company shares. This doesn't just mean that they are much richer. The money which they invest, or don't invest, the conapanies which they control, means that they decide what is produced, how, where, and when. “nd all to make orofits for them= selves. This means that they are a very powerful small group of peoole - the capitalist class. jecause they have this power, anc their systen dominates the economy, they are a ruling class.

Their systen has a tendency to go into crisis. It can't always ma’ enough profit for it to be worthwhile to produce much; workers, whe actually create the wealth through their labour, are thrown out of works The only way in which the rate of profit can be kept up is

for workers to be exploited nore, by having less pay and by heving

12.

J a ’ to work harder. 3ut ‘nore than. that, the money in the economy must be redistributed in order to keep the capitalist system afloat. oney must be transferred from the social welfare services into the private (capitalist, profit-making) sector. This is in order to reduce the taxation on capitalists and to free more money to be investedc in production for profit. ‘1s we have seen, this is often done very simply by government hand-outs to the bosses. It is supposed that the capitalists will invest this money in modernising their factories, setting-up new industries, setting people back to work, and the economy becoming lively again. “ut in a period of recurrent crises they simply do not make enough profits to make such investment worthwhile. Needless to say, we need the services ‘hich are cut - we cannot pay for health care like the capitalists, we need cheap bus-fares, we need low rents and cheaper houses, decent education, old peoples' homes, and childrens' nurseries.

The Tories are the open party of the capitalists. Tt 1S obvious why Tory governnents attack our living-standards. 3ut what about Labour” "ehave seen that their policies are often very similar to those of the Tories. 'abour governments attack workers too. Yet the Labour

Party is based on the trade-unions and claims to represent workers.

wabour. sometines claims to be ‘socialist’. 3ut the Labour Party is also comnitted to the aixec economy , which is capitalist. There is no secret about this - it is the open and avowed policy of the Labour earty and its leaders. Sonetines the leaders pretend that they will shift the balance of the econony towards predominantly oublic ownership,and control, so that things are produced to meet the needs of ‘the bulk of the donpulation - the workers. sut no Labour government has ever gone near to doing this- Just thin about it; to get rid of private ownershio of production and wealth, a Labour governnent would have to take away the oroperty of the capitalists. The capitalists - the ruling class - would fight, tooth anc nail, to defend their power and privileges. Labour has no intention of challenging then.

‘hat Labour actually promises is to reforn the system, to win a better condition for workers in it without actually upsetting the systen. “™ut we have seen that the system depends on exploiting workers to continue making profits. “hen profits are snall, there is no roon for reforns to be squeezed out of the bosses. You either have to challenge the system, or carry on trying to coax it back into life out of its crisis at the expense of the working class. Tt is this latter path which Labour alvays follows. In a boon, reforms are possible. tut in a recession, renaining connitted to the nixed econony' means siding with the capitalists. This is what Labour is committed to. That is why we say it will always, in the end, side with the bosses anc betray the workers. ‘nd that's why -abour cuts the health service. Their 12983 election manifesto offers nothing that was not offered in their 1974 nanifesto. It promises to expand services and the nublic sector by.......-borrowing.......and we have seen the record of that policy. In fact there is nly one real difference between 1°74 and ‘now. “‘hereas Labour linited wages in 1975 after it was elected, in .ay and June 13983 it promised openly to do that right fron the beginning of the election campaign, through the i/ational “cononic “‘ssessment!

Crisis of leadership in Unions

In the face of the attacks on every section of workers, the leaders of the MJS unions - lixe the leaders of every other section of the working class ~ are incapable of making a fundemental challenge to the root cause of the attacks; the capitalist system. Goth right anc left wings of the trade union leadership are incapacitated by the logic of their position. *1l wish to see the system reformed, for their nenbers to achieve better pay and conditions. “ut all the trace union officials ove their very existence to the continuation of the cavitarlist wages system. They mediate for better pay and conditions between us and the bosses. They have an interest in «keeping both sices of the funequal) partnership in existence. Their whole reason for being is to bargain within the existing system not to overthrov it.

Of course, the other side of this is that they need to stop us, the rank and file, from taking natters into our own hands. This neans that, time ane again, they are forced to betray our struggles,

rather than let then develo» into mass struggles that night actually challenge the bosses' systen. They are forced to negotiate the

least bac' terms for us in times of economic crisis - redundancy

Day instead of jobs! They do the bosses' dirty work by tightening their aenbers' belts for thea! Promising of course that one day, when the worlc crisis is over, or when we have import controls or have pulledc-out of the Tic, that the jampot will be back on the table.

The basic conservatism of the trace union officials stens from: their very position as negotiators with capitalism. ‘lowever, this conservatisn is greatly reinforced by the way the unions are oresently organised.

In many unions the officials are not elected at all but are appointed. ‘ven where they are elected, they are often elected for life. -In NJP%, the General Secretary is appointed for life.

Tn some unions, lixe the *Ji", the officials are subjected to re-election Sut the periods {five or seven years) are long ane allow the officials to remain unchscec and unaccountable at the tine when they are actually aaking decisions against the interests of the ren and file. “ertainly sore national officials are subject to contro] by 2 Lay executive or by a conference but, again, the indirectness or the infrecuency of elections to these bodies and the fact that the lay delegates to these bodies are increasingly drawn fron the ranks of stewards, convenors and branch officials who are engaged nearly ‘full-time on union business, all tends to weaken this control.

crucial factor in the distance between full-time officials and the nenbershin is the wide difference in incone and life-style between thei anc their nenabers. Generally, national officials are paid double or treble the average wage of their members. Obviously they are not directly spurred to struggle in the same way as the ran and file are. They are not under the same material pressures and 1S a result often do not uncerstand the urgency of neeting a clain an full. They will be more oden to pressure from the bosses to negotiate a compronise.

Thes2 conpromises' - in plain language, sell-outs - become the ain and object of the bureaucracy. Obviously, in a strike, the nenbers have to be mobilised in such a way as to frighten the employers into conceding something. YVowever, this is normally done in such

a way as to ensure that the members do not get out of hand .

ia, In other words, - the members must not take democratic conttfol of the GESpUte, LHS 25 especially the case when such struggles hold the ; potential for becoming political struggles against a particular government ~- and thereby against the capitalist system.

The 1982 NHS pay dispute gave us excellent examples, both locally and nationally, of the union officials' sabotage. Their desperate desire to compromise and, at times frenzied,efforts to tightly control the action revealed quite clearly their unwillingness to fight, to a large number of frustrated militants. Throughout the dispute the real initiative came from the rank and file. It was the local Joint Shop Stewards' Committees (JSSC's), Area Stewards! Committees, strike committees etc. which actually carried out the “ork of mobilising for the (inadequate) days of action, and attempt-~ ed to extend that action. It was they who were left to approach the miners and council workers - the rank and file who initiated imaginative tactics such as hospital occupations. They pressed for ana organised solidarity action and financial support from their brothers and sisters in the Iccalities. And it was the rank and file who demanded from their leadership that they call on the only tactic that could have won the dispute - the all-out strike.

Tne response from the officials? Nationally NUPE head office responded to the call from its own conference (the highest bodyof the union) for an all-out strike by sending out a circular instructing local officials not to act on the resolution. One local official warned a hospital mass meeting that if they took all-out strike action they could expect no support from him. Albert Spanswick of COHSE repeatedly declared that a national strike would be a challenge to the government which he wanted no part of. A spurious, bureaucratic “unity" between the top officials on the TUC Health Services Committee was substituted for a resolute united strategy which could have won the claim.

The TUC's handling of the dispute did not go entirely unchallenged by the rank and file. There were sporadic outbursts of local allout strikes and occupations. But these instances were fragmented, isolated, and uncoordinated. And the militants who organised them were, above all, unclear as to their goals, their programme. Knowing that something was going terribly wrong with the dispute, distrustful of their leaders, yet seeing no alternative - and not nticipating the full depths of bureaucratic manoeuvre and sabotage; they lacked a clear, coherent strategy for taking the dispute out of the hands of the TUC.

For this reason we describe the crisis of leadership as not being simple confined to the summits of the trade union leadership, but as extending right down to the workplace stewards who are prepared to fight but do not have the arguments necessary to combat a leadership committed to propping up an ailing capitalist system. To defend the working class successfully and to form this defence into an offensive means welding militants into a unified force. Jnified by a communist programme, by class struggle tactics, by the leadership of a revolutionary party - such a unified force could seriously challenge and ultimately replace the present TUC (and Labour) misleaders.

For alkank and File Movement i transiorm the Uraions

The tasks which the present period ci capitalist crisis faces the working class with, both of a political and an economic nature, both defensive and offensive, requires organisations, methods of struggle, strategic goals and immediate tactics which present-day reformist ( or a-political ) trade unionism is completely unable to provide.

The old reformist programme of piecemeal trade union improvement of living standards, allied to parliamentary reforms, which did receive a boost in post-- War Capitalist expansion, has now become a terrible straightjacket on the working class.

No orograrme, no strategy can be adequate to these needs except one which calls for the direct militant action of the workers themselves at all levels and in every phase of the class struggle from the strike over a wage claim up to and including the taking of state power by the working class.

The trade unions, essen*ial mass organs for the defence of the economic interests of the working class, can not limit themselves to this task alone. Today,unions which do not take up the tasks of political struggle against the bosses, which do not actively train end prepare workers for socialism end :9, via the medium of the trade unicn bureaucracy, tying the workers movement to the besses system, crippling even the elementary struggle of economic self-— defence and educating the masses in passivity and self-sacrifice for the contimiation of capitalist society.

It is vital that we win the unions fzom the grasp of their bureaucratic leaders, who collaborate in t:~ “yjthem ever more closely into the capitalist state in return for privileges and positions in the lower echelons of its machine ( Government commissions, councils etc. ) This means transforming them from their present narrow stultifiec form as organisations of, at most, half the working class into real fighting organs of the great mass of the working population. This necessitates transforming them politically, breaking down the bureaucratic rules and regulations and the sectional attitudes which sustain them -— which exclude politics. It means taking politics into the unions, making the unions take up the question of women's rights, such as abortion, of the British oppression in Northern Ireland, of action in support of the -frican masses against apartheid and in support of struggles against Imperialist domination throughout the world. It means taking up the struggle against racism in the unions, in the workplace and on the streets.

To achieve these aims, the rank and file militants of the unions must be rallied into a movement which has a definite fighting policy on the key issues facing the class; which recognises the necessity of winning the mass of the membership to the struggle for socialism; which trains and puts forward an alternaltive leadership to that of the bureaucrats,

In the health service, this means immediately building local rank and file organisations, based on the workforce in a particular workplace. These local committees must be linked into a national network ofrank and file committees, within which communists can argue for the programme that will meet the demands of health workers,

This form of organisation should be seen as distinct from other forms of "rank and file" bodies, which are either fronts for political organisations, eg. the hospital worker group ( SWP — now demised.) or are loose collections of militants that can best act as a broad left caucus existing only for electioneering purposes and annual conference interventions. Group'81 in COHS2 looks to be in danger of falling into this category. Neither version of rank and file

ai

movement will help N.H.S. militants in their struggles. Cnly a gemuine rank and file organisation such as we have outlined, in the unions and workplaces, and across them, will.

Put the Unions on a War rooting

In the key health unions ~ COHSS, NUFE, ASTMS and N.LGO — a rank and file movement. would have to fight for policies that could transform the unions into real. fighting organisations.

The fight to defeat the bosses' offensive can not be effectively carried through with the unions and shopfloor organisations in their present state. In the health ‘service this problem is acute.

The question of unionisation itself is still a problem for health workers. Many woxkers, particularly among nursing, and other professionals and administration and clerical staff still remain unorganised. A massive unionisation campaign, particularly among part-time workers and women, should be waged. Without this, a solid base for. putting the unions on a war footing can not be built. ©

Alongside such a campaign, efforts must be made to win staff out of the 'scab' professional organisations, such as the R.C.N. The role of such organisations was adequately illustrated during the 1982 pay claim, where their existence was used by the goverment to split the workforce, giving preferential offers to the grades of staff where these organisations predominate. The newer, unofficial organisations such as the National Institute for Caring Smployees

( NICE ! ) which base thenselves on hostility to industrial action, must also be destroyed.

But to win workers to the trade unions, they have to be shown to be democratic organisations that will fight. As we have said, workplace organisation in the health unions is extremely weak. COHS2 only introduced a stewards system in 2972, NALGO in 1977 and NUPE in 1967. Thus there is little in the way of an estadDlished tradition of stewards' organisation. Indeed, in NUPE, for years there was an almost exclusive reliance on local full-time officials, whenever ba basic workplace grievances arose. This state of affairs was no good for strikes. The 1.982 dispute highlighted the central importance of workplace organisations as the instigators of effective action.

se fight for an extensive shop stewards network in the hospitals. Joint shop stewards committees, representing all grades of staff, must be built, ‘with meetings being held in work-time and on full pay.

» All stewards should be regularly elected and made accountable to their members, The right to recall stewards, who should have no privileges beyond those necessary to carry out their jobs, should be firmly established.

* The committees should be real representatives of the whole workforce, free from craft and inter~union divisions. In order to keep members involved and info informed, stewards committees should report regularly to mass and section meetings and should produce regular workplace bulletins and newsheets, the content of which should be democratically controlled by the members.

- The joint stewards committees should fight for 100% trade unionism — for the closed shop.

18.

« To ensure the full involvement of union members, it is essential to organise _ branches that are based on the workplace and that meet in work time. This is doubly important in involving the whole workforce, particularly women, who may not be able to attend meetings outside of working hours.

*. crippling weakness in the N.H.S. is inter-union rivalry. éfter the 1979 dispute, the leaderships ‘of COHS2 and NUPE indulged in disgraceful and divisive antics. Sven in the 1982 dispute, where such great play was made of unity, divisions between the unions played a vital part in defusing the action. NUDE failed to fight for their own conference decisions, using the argument that the campaign had to be a united campaign — around the lowest common denominator. &4t the same time, both COHSE and NUPE vied with each other for the most militant 'face' — angling for members rather than fighting to win the struggle.

The only sure way of removing such damaging divisions is to fight for one health service union ~ one democratic union, controlled by the members. We would be opposed to any amalgamation that led to a federalist structure, with the component parts acting independently of each other, as in the engineering

union, with its four sections. 4 single health service union must be fully integrated, with the entire membership deciding policy for the union as a whole and not just for their particular section.

D2MOCR&TIGS THe UNICN STRUCTURE.

ft present, the unions are hopelessly undemocratic. In NWUFE, Bickerstaffe, Xeating et al are all appointed for life, as are the COHSZ leadershin. They

are paid salaries, far higher than the members wages. WALGC has some 700, non-elected full-time staff, 220 of whom are organising officials. The situation ensures that the trade union bureaucracy have a free hand, not being under the direct control of the rank and file. Their ability to betray is considerable.

#or this reason we argue for all full-time officials to be regularly elected, by a show of hands at bianch meetings in worktime, and constantly accountable.

‘ The sovereign body 3+ all unions sl ould be the annual lay delegate conference, the decisions of which should be binding on all officials and with all disoutes dased on the defence of trade union principles and on support of conference policies being immediately made official.

* Health service unicns should take their place within the wider labour movement, including affiliation to the Labour party. Delegates to the Labour party at all levels should be democratically controlled by the rank and file. The block vote, wielded at Labour party conferences, should proportionately represent the views in the union, as decided by anr:al delegate conferences. Delegates to the conference should be elected via the branches.

ts -T USC.

Within the TUC, the health unions should fight for policies that strengthen trade union solidarity. They should pledge support to all workers striking in defence of trade union principles. Low7l trades councils should be opened up and transformed into action-based councils, organising around struggles of the rank and file, rather than being local mouthpieces for the TUC bureaucracy.

In particular, health workers in dispute should seek to link up in action with other workers in struggle. 4 democratic, fighting public sector alliance can link up and strengthen workers in struggle.

The trade unions should fight for a fully democratic TUC, composed of lay delegates, who, alone, should have voting rights. A general council should be elected from among the delegates of the TUC.

The TUC should have the power to cail out ail unions in general strike action.

Strike ACTION IN THE HESLTH SERVICE.

But the question of strike action poses particular questions for health worker.. To put the health unions on a war, footing, the arguments must be won in advanc». failure to defend jobs and services or win pay increases is in art due to the ruling class having won the arguments, imposing responsibility for patient welfare on the workers themselves. |

Health workers must recognise that it is the state that bears responsibility for heaith care. If they want to avoid strike action, which does put patients at risk, then they have to shoulder their responsibility and concede to the just demands of the health workers.

Strike action must be all-out, with emergency cover, if any, only decided afi.» the action has been organised and by the workers themselves. It is essential «> these arguments’ are clinched as this. form of action is crucial to winning demoz¢- based on working class needs.

Stop the Cuts

The N.H.S., along with all other services connected with the Social wage must be defended against Tory attacks. Under the slogan "We will not pay for the bosses! crisis'' we must fight for direct action against cuts and closures.

Strikes, occupations, solidarity action by other workers, mass picketing, no cover for job vacancies, these are the forms of action to defend the N.H. Ss. and our jods. The language of reason will bring nothing from the profit-systen. Only a determination to act and win, will,

Ne must not only stop the cuts but force. a massive injection of cash into the public sector so that the cuts already made are restored and improved. As

part of a programme of public works under Trade Union control a massive hospital building programme must be undertaken.

Social @xpenditure must be protected from inflation and stagnation by a sliding scale of social expenditure. For every 1 rise in inflation there would be an extra li rise in expenditure.

In 1981 when, according to the Bank of England, profits were at an all time low, Glaxo — a major drug company made £125 million profit. Only advertising and

oil are more orofitable. Drug companies spend twice as much on advertising as they do on research. Most major research is carried out by Universities.

Generic drugs cost one quarter to one tenth of brand name drugs! These companies are a drain on the resources available to the N.H.S. They must be nationalised with no compensation, under workers' control and integrated into the Health Service, geared to its actual needs.

4s well as the drug companies, the parasites who dictate how much we can and can't have for our N.H.S., the banks and finance houses, must be nationalised. f£gain no compensation should be granted to the multi-millionaire owners of these enterprises, and workers' control must be introduced. Fublic spending should be based on what is needed not on what the sharks in the City of London say capitalism can afford.

Privatisation in the NHS.

Health workers face a new threat to their jobs and incomes ~ Frivatisation. The Tories' aim is a wholesale handing over of the profitable sections of the W.H.S. to the private sector. Health workers must fight for a health service free at the time of need and against the introduction of a two tier service, one for the rich and one for the poor,

The first steps towards privatisation came through pay beds in the N.H.S. The Labour government equivocated on the issue and made it easier for the private sector outside the N.H.S. to take a firm toe hold. The Tories, through the 1980 Health Services Act, at a stroke, knocked down virtually all barriers

for the private sector. Consultants have new contracts allowing them to undertake private work without damaging their N.H.S5. status and pay beds are not to be phased out.

Moreover, the Secretary of State under that Act is emoowered to make N.H.S. services and accommodation available to private patients and authorise private practice in an N.H.S. hospital where demand requires it. Health workers

Nise

must black all private work inthe N.H.S., that ig pay beds, diagnostic procedures such as blogd tests, X-rays and:all operations and treatment. There should be no co-operation with consultants or other medicalpractitioners using N.H.S.time or equipment for their profiteering.

The private sector, outside the N.H.S. has grown considerably with the encouragement of the Tory government both directly through legislation and indirectly through the cuts. In 1982 there were 140 acute private hospitals with 35,000 beds. There are plenty of profits to be made out of acute

health care, so much so that companies not connected with health are taking a keen interest. British Caledonian Airways and Trafalgar House are in discussions over the building of a private hospital near Gatwick Airport. This private sector has grown up on the back of the N.H.S. and its workforce, milking it of funds, technology and staff. These private consortiums should be immediately rationalised without compensation and integrated into the N.H.5. under workers’ control,

Another area that has profited considerably under the Tories is the private health insurance companies like B.U.i.4. Thé mumber of subscribers has more than doubled between 1979 and i983. Subscriptions of £125 million yielded profits for 8.U.F.é. and F.%.£. of £40 million. I11 health is a very profitable Dusiness. 3.3.7.7.U. negotiated entry into a private medical sheme for

40,000 electricians as part of a wage deal. 411 such deals should be scrapped. There should De no encouragement of such schemes in the Trade Union movement.

Geoffrey Howe is obviously pleased with the growth of these schemes but is keen to force them to grow even more.

‘Private health insurance is already one of 3ritain's growth industries. 4e must encourage it to grow faster’. (July 1983)

The one way the Tories can ensure the growth of private health insurance is through privatising the M.4.5. This is the aim of Tory strategy. Their attempts began in June 3980 through a circular encouraging contracting out, which was largely ignored by Area Health Authorities at the time. The Tories — in liarch 1983 have made it clear that laundry, catering and domestic services (to start with) must be tendered out. financial incentives have been offered. These moves are a direct attack on those sections that have traditionally been better organised and taken action on pay, conditions and the cuts. Frivatisation is a nolitical move against health workers and against: the N.H.S. It will mean a break up of union organisations, redundancies, lowering of wage rates, deterioration in conditions, scrapping of health and safety. It must be fought nationally and locally with direct action, mass pickets, occupations to prevent moving out of equipment, strike action. No contractor should be allowed inside the hospital gates. +411 present contractors should be kicked out. There should be no co-operation with contract workers already there. /Jorkers committees should be elected to monitor all attempts at contracting out and all other private work. The D.H.A. should open the books to workers inspection to

pin point ail areas of private work.

Wealth workers must fight for a health service that is absolutely free at the time of need. ;

Wages, conditions and unemployment

N.H.S. workers are amongst the lowest paid workers inthe countrv. Even if the 1982 claim of 12:3 had been met in full, most N.H.S. workers would remain on incomes below the official poverty line. Low pay particularly hits women.

In i98i, 59% of the female full—time workforce were on less than £75 a week - gross earnings. iven now, in 1983, many ancillary staff still take home little more than £50 a week. ‘ith many of the 75,: of the l!.H.sS. workforce that are women, being part-time, it is clear that the fight against low pay is a »oriority. ft the same time, staff often have to work unsocial hours, with overtime and special rates being very poor. any staff still do not get double time for working wee-ends or Dank holidays.

Add to that staff shortages, heavy work with patients, risk of infection or, in some cases violent attacks from patients or the public and the picture of working conditions in the I.1].S. is complete -— and it's not particularly rosy.

The trade union movement in the !I/.4.5. must take up the fight around all these issues, in such a way that the demands and needs of health workers are met.

The 1982 vay dispute showed us that, to win these demands, the only action that can be contemplated is all-out strike action, with emergency cover being decided by the strikers themselves.

Health workers should fight for policies that can end the problem of poor pay and conditions.

For a guaranteed national minimum wage, which should be in line with the national average industrial wage.

* For catch-up claims to restore the loss of living standards caused by years of pay restraint.

For a sliding scale of wages, based on a 1% rise for every 1% rise in a cost of living index, worked out by price-watch committees of N.H.S. workers and their families.

This is necessary because of the phoney retail price index which does not reflect the needs.of working class families.

‘ No to all incomes policies in whatever guise. The trade unions should oppose any deal with the government, whether Tory or Labour, that seeks to restrict wage increases. Incomes policies under capitalism mean attacks on our living standards.

jage increases should he achieved through free collective bargaining. The antiquated and bureaucratic system of Whitley Councils should be abolished. The Whitley Council System was first introduced during the first world war, as a way of taking the negotiations out of the hands of local militants and concentrating it in the hands of national committees - half management and half workers. This system, designed to undermine militancy and to promote a more efficient war economy, was in 1948 found to be ideal for the W.H.S.

The added oroblem of having representatives of professional organisations, with no trade union connections, sitting on the committees and deciding the pay and conditions of health workers, means that health workers have little control

over negotiations.

Health wor!-ers should have full control over their pay claims, deciding what should be accepted through mass meetings of health workers in the work places.

Votes should be taken on a show of hands. There should >¢ special: payments for all staff working necessary unsocial hours,. with at least double time for evenings and week-ends and more for nights and bank holidays.

Health workers should fight all redundancies or 'natural wastage’ in the N.H.S. The 1.u.S. is understaffed and more staff and hospitals are needed to provide a service.

The deceitful claims of the Tories that they are employing more nurses, does

not explain why thousands of nurses find themselves on the dole queues, while the jobs of ancillaries, administrative staff etc. are lost through cuts and

‘natural wastage'. The unions must fight for direct action to protect jodDs —- and therefore services.

There should be no cover for unfilled vacancies, no overtime working and no cuts and closures.

“ Health workers should oppose all bonus schemes or ‘productivity deals' (which sell jobs for a little more cash) all speed-ups and deliberate understaffing.

They should fight for a sliding scale of hours under trade union control. when the work slackens the hours should be reduced, with no loss of pay. The number of hours worked should be geared to the needs of the job. By controlling hiring and firinc, an important step can be taken in alleviating the deadening weight of shift-work. Jhilst unavoidable in the [.4.5., shift-work, and therefore the associated social and psychological/physical problems, could be reduced, To achieve this we need to struggle for workers control in the industry.

To combat redundancies and relieve unemployment, there should be work-sharing - not the jod-splitting that the Tories propose as a way of cynically reducing the unemployment figures, while paying a pittance - on full pay and under trade union control. /11 work in the W.H.G. should be paid work and at the agreed rates. Health workers should oppose work by volunteers and workers on government schemes.

There should be an immediate introduction of a 35 hour week, with no loss of pay and a negotiated reduction thereafter. Out the hours not the jobs.

Heath authorities which claim they cannot meet the cost of these demands must be forced to overspend.

Trade unions in the !1.H.5. must have full access to minutes of management meetings and authority plans. «shen management say they have to close a service or

default on a pay deal, then health workers can defend their jobs and living standards and the 1!.H.S., on a fully informed basis.

Cpen all the books and committees to health workers' inspection.

ft the same time, the government must initiate a massive injection of cash into the N.H.S. along with a crash programme of public works, involving the building of new hospitals, health centres etc.

Unemployed health workers should be involved in campaigning around these demands retaining full trade union rights when they become unemployed. Trade unions should organise unemployed sections and encourage the setting up of unemployed workers unions, which should be under the control of the unemployed

24..

themselves but which should receive real—assistance from the rest of the labour movement.

Defend the Trade Unions

4 major obstacle to the British bosses' plans for wage cuts, service cuts and job cuts, is the organised struggle of the working class. The trade unions, particularly at the work—place level, have been a thorn in the side of all governments trying to manage capitalism's crises. The last Tory government — helped by fear of mass unemployment and a cowardly T.U.C. - did manage to pass extensive anti-union laws. lore will be on the way.

Prior's 1980 Imployment fct restricted the ability to take solidarity action and picket other places of work. Tebbdit's Act was the Tories' second - more severe — stage of union bashing. The closed shop - 100: trade unionism — and the right to take political strike action were attacked. Slacking of goods

in other disputes was outlawed and workers claiming unfair dismissal have

lost more of their rights. The Tories are making sure that if, in the event of an economic upturn, militancy increases, they have the legal weapons to

attack the unions with. That is why a third stage of legislation is planned which will make strike ballots compulsory — an affront to workers' democracy and a gift to the bosses' yellow press, the Sun et al who will do everything they can to influence results in favour of the bosses. This round of legislation is also going to break our right to dispense of our political

funds how we want. It is out to break the links between the unions and the Labour ~arty, not democratise. /lso, crucial from the point of view of health workers, Tedbit has proclaimed to ban the risht to strike in essential services - like ours.

All of these measures are aimed at weakening effective rank and file trade union action. The bosses will use their laws, when the time is right for thon, to stop us striking for a decent wage, or against job cuts.

The Tories have proved themselves both determined and well prepared in their attack on the whole of the working class. Success in fighting them requires, as resolute an approach by us.

Their attacks on the unions are central to their plans and only the most wide— spread and militant action will force them to retreat. It means modilising

the rank and file for direct action to stop the rot and throw back the Tory offensive. 4A class wide mobilisation is necessary to defeat their class wide attack on us. The laws are an attack on the rights of every single trade unionist. or this reason it is necessary to recognise that only a General Strike can wine the Tories' laws off the statute book. Je must campaign in every union and work-place to demand that the leaders of the T.U.C. call an indefinite General Strike. We cannot have any doubts that this will only hapven if the T.U.C. is under massive pressure from the rank and file. If they fear that developing mass action will get out of their control they will try to strangle it. That is why the rank and file must be ready to organise and

control such action themselves.

The best means for doing this is to ensure that in the fight against the Tory laws we organise Cross union and cross industries committees iB Gueny

locality. Not only are such committees the best means for mobilisins action, their existance is as controllers of the strike which 1s also the best means

of stopping the bureaucrats demobilising a: general strike.

Zoe

Detend the Oppressed

Jorkers can only win the battle with the bosses if they draw into their class struggle all those who suffer extra oppression or exploitation in capitalist society — women, Dlackg, the young, the aged, gays. In the first place this 1s a fight to unify the working class itself. Divisions between women and men, black and white, enable the bosses to weaken and defeat us. To forge unity : the unions, especially in the work—places iust become champions of the specia needs of these grouns. They must fully open the workers' organisations to the

Women Workers

Cver 75% of the 11.4.5. workforce are women, a large number of these women are part-time workers. In NUFS in 1982 66% of the membershiv were women and it is said to have more women members than any other British trade union. In COHSéE 755, of the membership are women. iost of these women were at the forefront of every march, picket and lobby of the health dispute in 1982. In 1982 the percentage of women stewards in MUFE increased to 42% - the 1980 level was 27%. In the Gisoute women played an active and decisive role, well beyond the ‘normal! levels of involvement of women in the unions. But this was a vital issue for women ~— the fight against low pay. In 'normal' times women are Less involved, not Secause they are naturally passive or not interested in the union which the leaders would have us believe, but because those leaders have erected a whole series of barriers in the unions to women's involvement. “or example, meetings outside of work time cause enormous problems for women, and yet there is much resistance to organise work—place meetings. Still of ‘the 127 sxea Cfficials in NUPE and 125 in COHSE only 6 in each are women.

NUPE leaders pride themselves on talking women seriously - they organise womens schools, there are 5 seats (out of 21) on the executive committee reserved

for women, there are special leaflets on women. 3ut these measures amount to little more than window dressing. ‘hen it comes to taking action on the issues most key to women, cuts, privatisation, defence of jobs, abortion, the leaders duck out. The attitude of the trade union bureaucracy is essentially one ‘of helping women out of playing an active role in the union.

The real. attitude was more accurately revealed by the ‘left'' bureaucrat Bernard Dix (recently defected to =laid Cymru) who stated:

‘vie tend to get women in our union who are married but unable to move away from home. This makes it very difficuit to appoint any of them as officers. You don't need women to recruit women. ‘wring the last five years we have achieved equal pay for women. In terms of results they've seen what we (the men) have achieved for them.

In other words don't worry your heads or leave the hearth girls - the men will fight our struggles for us. This scandalous attitude is rife in the unions, just as it is in everysphere of life. Jhy does it exist and how can it be fought?

Under capitalism women remain condemned to the role of domestic labourer and child—bearer within the confines of the family. They are shunted in and

out of worl by the employers as a source of expendable, cheap labour and used to foster divisions in the working class. Oppressed as women,

26;

super-exploited as workers, the struggle by women for their emancipation must be the goai of the organised iabour movement.

The struggle for the emancipation of women “is inextricably tied to the struggle for socialism. (Cnly a socialist society, where the productive forces are planned and democratically controlled, can release women from their centuries-old oppression, laying the basis for them to achieve full equality with men. Cnly

a socialist society can socialise housework and child-rearing thus freeing women from domestic drudgery and oppression.

On a world scale the enploying class is organising to force women to pay for their crisis, to attack those reforms and social provisions won by women and thz labour movement in the last period. Incomes Folicy and inflation cut real waces Cuts in public spending injure women as workers through the loss of jobs in the social services and as ‘'consumers'' for whom the shrinking of these services means

heavier and heavier burdens in the home caring for the young, the sick and the elderly.

Unemployment strikes varticularly sharply at women -~ often unorganised or weakly organised. iven in strong unions the “first in last out!’ principle works to women's disadvantage — given their childrearing breaks in employment. 411 too ofte the attitude of male trade unionists - "women out first'', "women only work for pin money blocks the use of the full strength of the union +, fight women's unenployment.

Everywhere the extremely limited and circumscribed right to abortion is under constant attack as a focus of the ideological campaign to drive women back into the home — most noteably the “Joman as jiother'' camoaign spearheaded by the Catholic Church.

The Trade Union movement must take up the struggle against these attacks. 3ut

in order to do so, in order to draw women into the class struggle, they must

put their own house in order. They must be organised to lead a determined strucgle against women's exploitation and to open their ranks to the fullest participation by women worcers. The Trade Unions's record of support for women's struggles

is lamentable. “ere, as in the general class struggle, the bureaucracy has

made its peace with capitalism. It is thus the entrenched enemy of women

within the labour movement. Yet women have fought back against the attacks.

They have struci:, occupied, marched to defend their jobs and social service provisions. This gives the lie to the claim that women are ‘naturally’

passive or indifferent to trade union and political struggle.

OPIN THE UNITS TO WOMEN NOVGERS Ce Se SS

Through their particular oppression as wives, mothers and workers women face problems of confidence in raising demands in the Trade Unions and practical difficulties in attending meetings outside work time. They often face the hostility of male trade unionists and trade union bureaucrats..-

we must fight for:

1) Unien meetings in work time and on full pay, 2) Ter women's right to caucus in the unions,

3) For democratic women's sections in the unions, while in no way restricting the right of women to participate in the unions as a whole, in no way allowing the women's sections to become a means for ghettoising women workers,

4) Trade Union membership rights for housewives and unemployed

women,

Sy for the right of gay people to caucus in the unions.

27.

de must fight for the opening of all skills, trades and professions to women. Only such measures will allow women to play a full role in the working class movement and will prevent the employers using women as a source of cheap and insecure labour against the working class as a whole.

1) For positive discrimination in favour of women in training schemes and education ... under Trade Union control,

2) Squal Fay for Equal dork NOW: The 'Squality' legislation produced by the Labour Government has proved to be completely inadequate. Cnly direct industrial action by women workers themselves — rather than reliance on government tribunals ~ can secure equal pay;

3) ‘Qainst discrimination and victimisation on the grounds of sexual orientation;

4) #or the defense of protective legislation and for its extension where appropriate to cover men ... under Trade Union Control. lo dismissal during pregnancy - adequate paid paternity, maternity and child care leave with no loss of benefits.

In the struggle against unemployment the workers' movement must oppose all attempts by enployers to force women out of the workforce. ie must therefore fight for: Gy00sition to all 'women out first' solutions,

for a woman's itight to work, Cnly by taking up these demands can we prevent the employers using women to divide the workforce, stop then exploiting the prejudices of sections of the male workforce to their own advantage.

le must ensure that che trade unions take up the fight for massive government spending on a progranme of social services that enable women to play an ever greater role in sccial and political life.

For free 24-hour mursery and creche facilities under trade union control 3 For free laundry and canteen facilities under trade union control.

For a Joman'ts wight to Choose: #ree Abortion on Demand; for the provision of day care centres.

The whole working class movement must take up and struggle for these demands, but we must recognise the backwardness of male workers on the question and struggle to overcome it. This backwardness of male workers makes it necessary for women to organise together at the workplace and on the housing estates to lay the foundation for ea fighting women's movement. For full time housewives the possibilities of organising together are made more difficult through their isolation from cone another within the home and their isolation from the collective votential of the organised trade union movement. If these women are to be won they must be drawn into the structures and organisations of the working class including all rank and file bodies of struggle, e.g. anti-fascist committees, cuts committees, from which as individuals they may at present be excluded. The building of committees of trade unionists and housewives to monitor prices is an important immediate step in raising workers' control and drawing. women into struggle. Zqually important is the drawing of women into shoo stewards committees. ull time housewives must be drawn by women workers into building of a working ‘class women's movement.

Such a working class women's movement, though independent of the rank and file

28.

movement will fight alongside it to achieve its aims.

Racism and Fascism

Racism is a sickening and divisive creed which serves the bosses, not the workers. In the 1950s many thousands of black workers were recruited to the NHS (by none other than Gnoch Powell !) Now that capitalism can no longer afford to employ them they are being dumped on the dole queues, blamed for unemployment and subject to harassment by the police, and white racists incited to act against them. The Home Office now accepts that its figure

of 7,000 racist attacks each year is 'on the low side'. Meanwhile, the policy of the government has been a 'respectabie' complement to the attacks of the racist boot boys. The Immigration Acts brought in by previous Tory and Labour governments had already made coloured immigration all but impossible. Only some categories of dependents of those already settled here could gain entry. The Tories' Nationality Act is the centre of this attack -— it creates three classes of 3ritish citizenship in order to ensure that whites only can get into the country. This Act has been designed to make the intimidation of the black community acceptable and to pave the

way for repatriation. It places all black people under suspicion and opens them to spot checks and harassment, eg. in the health service, the checking of passports before health care is given. eportations have increased with an estimated 250 being deported each month (Guardian). These laws encourage a view of blacks as alien, it encourages an acceptance of discrimination

as justifiable. In the Health Service, black workers fill the lowest paid, low status jobs, black nurses are diverted into SiN rather than ‘Sli training. Black patients are confronted with racist passport checks. This intimidates and demoralises black workers, its acceptance weakens the struggle faced

by both black and white health workers. hile some sections are low paid, all pay is downgraded; while race checks continue, payment for health care, ie. privatisation, will creep in through the backdoor. /11 these 'respectable' measures, along with Margaret Thatcher's speech about black people ' swamping! Britain, are designed to intensify racism and so divide black and white workers. Yet in the 1982 pay campaign it was the white Norman ‘owler who was equally attacking black and white health workers. This demonstrates who the real enemy is - the bosses and their government, not workers of a different colour. se must fight all forms of racism inside and outside the Nis.

* No to all race checks in the NHS or other branches of the social services. * 2epeal all racist legislation. No immigration controls. For full equality for black people at work. No discrimination against blacks — for nositive discrimination to ensure the opening up of job/ aDprenticeship opportunities to blacks, under trade union control.

To fight for these policies racism must be smashed in the unions, which after years of supporting the sanctity of the exploitative 'sritish Empire’, are saturated with it. Open racists must be deprived of office and blac workers mist have the right to caucus, to pressure for their neglected needs to be taken up by the unions as a whole. The fascists of the N? and the Bit etc take advantage of racism to create further divisions in the working class

so that they can physically destroy our organisations. The N*'s racism is the equivalent to Hitler's anti-semitism. It is the means to am end, the end being the smashing to smithereens of our unions and parties. .e must physically prevent the fascists from succeeding by driving them out of the Labour “ovement and denying them any platform whatsoever from which to organise or perpetuate their views. In 1978 Whe members at the Sheffield iddlewood Hospital forced the resignation of the branch chairperson — ‘en Brack - previously a candidate for the NF in the local election. This shows what can be done if health workers organise against racism and fascism.

*)

FOUL

It is vital that youth are won to the side of the workers' movement. Only decisive action by the working class to fight unemployment, deteriorating social services and racism can prevent fascists gaining credibility with a section of youth. ull defence of young workers by the unions can win real class fighters to our movement. The YOi and YTS aim to turn youth into slave labour. The pittance paid, forces youth into dependency on their families, thousands of which will have other unemployed members as well. Youth on the YTS will be carefully vetted by prospective employees who will receive a cash bonus for taking on trainees. This bonus does not oblige them to give the trainees jobs, however. #mployers get £1,850 for each trainee, £1,400 of which is paid to the worker. The chairman of the MSC wrote in The Director (Cct '82) "You now have the opportunity to take on young men and women, train them

and let them work for you almost entirely at our expense and then decide whether to employ them or not."

These so called training schemes will also rob us of full time jobs and under-— mine the trade unions. Tedbit has made no secret of the fact that he wants

to see youth in jobs now done by women (women don't register as unemployed) and it doesn't take much imagination to forsee how low paid, unorganised youth could be used by contractors in the hospital ancillary services most likely to be privatised, and those which now mainly employ women workers.

The government hope to bring up a whole generation who will accent less and will fulfill the function of disciplining the unions and destroying their power. ‘lso, these young workers are asked to work in dangerous conditions — some were found sawing asbestos sheeting by hand while wearing paper masics, totally inadequate for their safety. Young people have lost limbs and the mortality rate on Y% schemes is not insignificant. Derek Cain, a 16 year old, icilled on a Sheffield scheme was working at an unregistered, ie illigal factory ~ the \1sC hadn't checked the place at all.

We must fight for full union rates for the job and full union rights on these schemes as long as they are in existance, but our aim must be the abolition of these schemes and their replacement by a massive programme of useful public works at full rates of pay, fully unionised and under trade union control.

For unemployed young workers a fight must be launched to win these rights in all apprenticeship and training schemes. The labour movement must help

organise and provide to youth, premises and facilities for recreation and education. It must help youth to rise in revolt against the repression

of the state, the school and the family. To achieve this it mst fight for:

* The extension of study and apprenticeship facilities. For a government financed opening of the colleges and apprenticeship schemes to all youth.

Zor the provision of adequate leisure and study centres under trade union and young workers' control. For democratic-youth sections in the unions which should in no way restrict the rights of young workers to participate in the union as a whole.

* Sor the provision of confidential contraception and medical facilities for youth. The age of consent - that is the age at which the state says that youth have the right to have sex with each other ~ is a gross violation of democratic rights. Youth under i6 who have sexual relations live in fear because they are 'breaking the law'. This breeds sexual repression, taboos and can be the cause of damaging and even violent attitudes about sex. Against this, we say that the state has no right to interfere with anybody's sex life — abolish the age of consent! It does have a duty, through schools, to provide extensive sex education which should destroy the taboos, end ; repression and include courses designed to show the legitimacy of gay relationships. |

Gays |

Discrimination against workers on the grounds of sexual orientation or suspected homosexuality is another aspect of the way capitalism can divide and rule us. These attacks,always present, are part of the moral reaction that intensifies during economic crises, as scapegoats are sought, and resulting prejudices are encouraged.

Irrational prejudices against gays help legitimise the oppressive nature of capitalism, as it leaps to defend the sanctity of one of its basic social units — the family.

Gay workers face particular problems if they work in the 'caring' sector like the N.H.5. because of the irrational view of them as a threat to young people or 'helpless' patients (mentally ill patients, for example) Gays, like heterosexuals, should be free to express themselves as such in public. Yet are gay workers in the health service likely to feel confident enough to "come out" especially if they work with children

or young people. They will have seen that gays like Judith illiams

who was sacked from her job as a 'house-parent' and Jim Saunders prevented from working at a youth camp, both lost their cases at Unfair Dismissal Tribunals despite proving that they were in no way corrupting young people.

The assumptions that all gays are 'sex mad’, that they all have designs on all young people and are out to corrupt them are equally fallacious. This disgraceful and illogical argument is never used in relation to heterosexuals because rape exists, or because the great majority of cases of sexual activity between adult and children/young people are heterosexual!

Gays are not free to express themselves because of prejudice. The law makes homosexual sex illegal until 21 and discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is not covered by the Sexual Discrimination Act. Gays are subject to 'queer bashing', gay bars are frequently raided, gay marches have been attacked by the police.

we must get union support for all struggles, however limited to end the legal discrimination gays face.

No discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation ~ fholish the age of consent ‘ For gay self defence against police harassment and ‘queer bashing'

To achieve this gays must have the right to caucus within the unions as

a means of bringing their case before the union as a whole. ije will have

to take up the reactionary prejudices held by many workers through education and nropaganda speaking tours by gay militants and. so. on. Steps forward have been made. Jhile the TUC refuses to include a ‘sexual orientation" clause in its employment code, N4&LGO and NUFE are committed to such a policy. NALGC has given official support to Judith Jilliams in her struggle. It also supported Tower Hamlets N&LGO workers who struck, and won reinstatement for a worker sacked for being gay. In the CPSA and SCrS similar steps forward have been taken at least at the level of policy. in some unions groups of gay workers have organised themselves as, effectively, gay caucuses — G4YPO in the ost Cffice and the Gay Teachers Group are examples of this.

xe Fe

The Working Class and Internationalism

2)

d)

COLONIES AND SMI COLCNIES

scanner 2. ream of the major nations operate on a world scale. 3ritain's if BP ankers exploit millions of workers and peasants in scores of oreign countries around the globe, In defence of those interests they take economic sanctions or wage wars - against national liberation struggles against countries that try to nationalise ‘3ritish"" interests and against :

those countries where the worker exp i : G Ss and peasants have roor capitalist class. Seed.

The working class will never be able to fight effectively for its own freedom while remaining silent over the question of the British ruling class' oppression of other nations. Je must fight for the immediate end of the

vicious policy of national oppression being implemented by the British Army in Ireland.

* Troops Cut llow * Let the Irish people as a whole determine the future of the Six Counties. * Support the Irish republican resistance aJ4nst the 3ritish Army

In the same way we must recognise Argentina's justified right to possess the Malvinas Islands and demand that British troops leave immediately. It is the same class who will benefit from the privatisation of the N.8.S. who benefit from a strong, belligerent imperialism abroad. Health workers interests

lie with those oppressed by imperialism, their fight weakens those who control us.

It is suicidal and against the interests of British workers to link themselves to ‘‘8xitish national interests". Under capitalism these are merely the interests of those who own and control the country. Throughout the world this class is fighting a desperate battle to maintain its grip on the markets and raw materials it has so ruthlessly exploited. spearheaded by American Imperialism they are prepared for war to hold on to and ultimately to extend

their possessions.

The Trade Union lvovement must make it its task to support movements of liberation against imperialism in all ways possible.

* Black supplies to Imperialist war efforts

% Build solidarity campaigns to give financial support to freedom fighters

* Stop United States and British intervention in Nicaragua.

THE DRIV2 TC WAR

Prodan nana

of workers in other countries and provides a

i i fuels hatred eet obese =P all out Imperialist War. RY

popular basis for colonial wars and for an

-must say in or out the tasks of the workers movement remain the same

+ ss a8 He Sta RA Sige By }

ee } sc), yf : oa | ‘ : F ’ i ee ae ? Ae, & ‘ ’

It will be in this ‘national interest’! that we will ‘be expected to give our lives in such a war, @ war that promises to leave human civilisation 1n xyuins.

Jars and warmongering have always been pursued in the interests of capital.

Today is no different as ailing wiestern capitalism seeking to solve the = deepening economic crisis, casts a jealous eye over those areas of the glove it can't directly @xloit - the USSK and the other degenerate workers states. Thatcher and Xeagan successfully play on fears of the Soviet threat - they are supposed to be better armed (a nonsense) and eager to expand into Jjestern Surope - again a nonsense. Fower in the Xremlin 1s in the hands of a tiny and increasingly geriatric. clique whose most compelling drive is to find a way of defending their power and privileges through co-existing with the western capitalists. Time and time again history has shown this to be the case. At the end of the last war they unscrupulously presided over the demobilisation of communist party~led resistance movements in Greece, Italy and Trance in exchange for Eastern Buropean spheres of influence. Since then they have maintained an unswerving committment to peaceful co-existance with the Major capitalist powers.

“ No siting of Cruise or Trident - Britain out jof N.4.T.O. now. Not a man, woman, or penny for the defence of this ‘system.

* Defend the 150% and the other degenerated workers states against Imperialist attack.

Despite the fact that the bureaucrats hold political power the economies in these countries is no longer capitalist. Thanks to the genuine workers’ revolution in <ussia in 1917, capitalism was overthrown, It has not yet been restored, end we do not want it to be. That is why we defend the USS2 etc., from imperialists who do want to restore capitalism.

NO TC FALSS NETICMALIST SOLUTIONS

ft home we must be wary of falling prey to “easy'! nationalist solutions to our own problems. Such solutions play into the hands of the racists. ‘e ete Tage BASES: reject Labour's netionalist and isolationist solutions to the eriSis Of Britieh orpitalicm. ‘Jithdrawal from the Common imarket wrongly sees

British capitalism as preferable to a "foreign" Zuropean capitalism. Je

Deve i i velop and strengthen international unity in the workers movement

Build Internati i i ernetional Trade Unions to fight the bosses international combines

Doce nanan solutions such as import controls which aim t Joos 1n 3ritain at the expense of workers elsewhere. :

The Question of Government

ei ae: of pe policies argued for in this pamphlet inevitably clashes with seg uke Sea Pea of a ruling class which puts one thing above all else Nl oosting profits. The drive for profit i i i : reer oie enter 2 cate . profit is not something which apitalists, though there are plent Ps y of then. t cannot be reformed out of the system. we cannot psychoanalyse the top ce

capitalist families so that the i i t y will realise how much more ple would be if they were to redistribute their wealth. Se ee

of capitalism, its mainspring. Profit is the very motcr

& programme which puts peo : ; ple's needs bef profits thus challenges the very heart of the capitalist system and PAS

fought tooth and nail by its representatives. Only by capitalism's destruction could these policies be safeguarded and consolidated into lasti gains. Cnly an economy planned and controlled by democratic councils of Ee the mass of society — the workers themselves ~ could lay the basis for a truly caring society, for a National Health Service, rather than a sickness industry.

ile look to no saviours to achieve this. io Tony Benn or Arthur Scargill can do at for us. It must be the mass action of the organised working class — politically led by a revolutionary communist party - which opens the gates to socialism. It must be, because no one person or party or government can destroy the political power of the bosses, their armed forces and police,

their unelected judsjes and permanent bureaucracy. The tragic experience of Chile in 1973 demonstrated that a naive faith in the sanctity of parliamentary majorities is not shared by a determined ruling class which feels its power threatened. :

je recognise, however, that the lessons of history have not yet been thoroughly digested by the majority of our fellow workers. They do, to a greater or lesser extent, believe that a Labour govermment, possibly led by a left figure like Benn; can achieve socialism. In these circumstances, it is our duty, whilst not acceoting this view, to join with them in forcing the existing reformist leaders of the working class -— left and. right -— to carry out S pro-working class and anti-capitalist measures. This is why, generally speaking and at this stage in the class struggle, we call at elections for a vote for Labour. Je cali for Labour to be put to the test of action rather than allowing it to pose as the party of the working class when in opposition “ whilst at every stage we make clear its past record and present inadequacies.

Let us imagine a future Labour government which, under pressure from the sng of workers, took steps along the road of a struggle against the ASE oe em. Not necessarily a likely scenario, but let us imagine anyway that ae — = even partially - with the bosses in whose interests it has up to Bis — - Then, as far <s it acted against the ruling class and for the — SS would support it. Sut we would demand that such a government aoe ae of extensive pro-working class measures on wages, jobs, the vie ava > education, the i'.7.5. and against oppression. This would mee <a ee xom the whole paraphernalia of official society. The a y provoke runs on the pound and a flight of capital. The apes = ie jllegalise the government's actions; the House of Lords wou s poser u ent; the “ueen could and would dismiss the gove — = : would intervene against it. faced with —- resis anc would face a choice —- fight or flight. The working class however would have no choice. Its slogan would have to be 2 a =

ernment based on and answerable to councils of action and a Ke wiiitia Such a government could not be established without a gnc confrontation and struggle. It would require the building pata - party canable of leading the working class into the decisive x

resistance f

measures in parliam The police and army a Labour government

‘*

$55

would necessitate winning the troops away from their officers, arming the workers militia and proceeding to the expropriation of the banks and monopolies.

Only on this basis can an economy planned for need not profit be created. Only then can we be sure that the shadow of the workhouse has been lifted, that

we will never again have to pay for the right to live a healthy life. Only then will the health of our fellow workers be put before the profits of the drug compan ies and arms manufacturers.

In the truest sense, then, this pamphlet has been an ACTION PROGRAMME FOR HEALTH.