One of the fundamental criticisms of capitalism is that it produces enormous inequalities in income and wealth. These inequalities are not the product of effort personally made in the course of labour but of the division in the ownership of productive resources and the commercial and financial structure that is part of this pattern of ownership.
To put it more bluntly, the great majority depend for their income on the sale to an employer of their ability to work. A much smaller number depend for their income on the surplus they gain from the employment of others. The difference in rewards can be, and sometimes is, enormous.
This is not to assert that everyone falls into this stark division. There are some within our society who combine modest ownership with consistent personal effort. There are many shopkeepers, small traders and farmers who fall into this category. They, however, are not the recipients of huge incomes.
There are also some within the professions who enjoy a very comfortable income and life-style as a reward for their special knowledge and contribution. Similarly, there are some — of whom a small minority of professional footballers and the stars of screen and popular music are examples — who receive high incomes as a reward for their very unusual talent often accompanied by a short career.
In addition to those in society who are counted as ‘actively employed' there are millions of others who are not in paid employment but who, nevertheless, make a very valued contribution to human welfare. Many combine more than one role. They go out to work and also work in the home, looking after a family or elderly or infirm relatives. Very few of the millions within these social categories have other than very modest incomes.
Finally, there are the pensioners, the unemployed and disabled people. The majority live on low incomes.
The stark fact about British society is that for many years now, including the years since 1997 when Labour was elected to office, the inequality of British society has not lessened. On the contrary, it has widened.
Only a few weeks ago it was widely reported that boardroom pay at Britain's top companies soared by 37 per cent last year. Full-time directors received big increases in basic salaries, bonuses and benefits from share allocation and option schemes.
The average total pay of chief executives in these companies was said to be £2,875,000 per year. The percentage rate increase in their total pay was reported in The Guardian as approximately 11 times the rate of increase of average earnings for all employees and approximately 20 times the rate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index.
It was also widely reported that in the City of London alone, annual bonus payments amounted to more than £14 billion. These increases were higher than in previous years. But they follow a long-term trend during which the rewards going to the people at the very top of British industry, finance and commerce have been rising proportionately much faster than the pay of working people, small owners and pensioners.
This social contrast between the very rich and the rest of society is indefensible. When asked about the rise in income at the very top of society the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, did not defend it but he did not condemn it. His reply, in substance, was that the ‘top people' should exercise responsibility.
He offered this reply at a time when the government were denying the prison officers a very modest annual increase of 2.5 per cent recommended by an official pay review body. The government was insisting that this should be staged, the effect of which would be to reduce the annual increase to 1.9 per cent.
Pay review bodies, the members of whom are appointed by ministers, are normally set up where real collective bargaining is denied to the workforce — as, for example, the armed forces — or where the right to strike is forbidden by law. This latter provision applies to prison officers.
There is no justification for the government's attitude to the recommendation made for the pay of prison officers. By no stretch of reason can it be argued that the recommended increase is unjustified. It is less than the average annual increase of other workers and it is very much less than the top people in British companies have given themselves this year. Why does a Labour government act in this way? It is wrong and the whole labour movement should say so.
One of the fundamental criticisms of capitalism is that it produces enormous inequalities in income and wealth. These inequalities are not the product of effort personally made in the course of labour but of the division in the ownership of productive resources and the commercial and financial structure that is part of this pattern of ownership.
To put it more bluntly, the great majority depend for their income on the sale to an employer of their ability to work. A much smaller number depend for their income on the surplus they gain from the employment of others. The difference in rewards can be, and sometimes is, enormous.
This is not to assert that everyone falls into this stark division. There are some within our society who combine modest ownership with consistent personal effort. There are many shopkeepers, small traders and farmers who fall into this category. They, however, are not the recipients of huge incomes.
There are also some within the professions who enjoy a very comfortable income and life-style as a reward for their special knowledge and contribution. Similarly, there are some — of whom a small minority of professional footballers and the stars of screen and popular music are examples — who receive high incomes as a reward for their very unusual talent often accompanied by a short career.
In addition to those in society who are counted as ‘actively employed' there are millions of others who are not in paid employment but who, nevertheless, make a very valued contribution to human welfare. Many combine more than one role. They go out to work and also work in the home, looking after a family or elderly or infirm relatives. Very few of the millions within these social categories have other than very modest incomes.
Finally, there are the pensioners, the unemployed and disabled people. The majority live on low incomes.
The stark fact about British society is that for many years now, including the years since 1997 when Labour was elected to office, the inequality of British society has not lessened. On the contrary, it has widened.
Only a few weeks ago it was widely reported that boardroom pay at Britain's top companies soared by 37 per cent last year. Full-time directors received big increases in basic salaries, bonuses and benefits from share allocation and option schemes.
The average total pay of chief executives in these companies was said to be £2,875,000 per year. The percentage rate increase in their total pay was reported in The Guardian as approximately 11 times the rate of increase of average earnings for all employees and approximately 20 times the rate of inflation as measured by the consumer price index.
It was also widely reported that in the City of London alone, annual bonus payments amounted to more than £14 billion. These increases were higher than in previous years. But they follow a long-term trend during which the rewards going to the people at the very top of British industry, finance and commerce have been rising proportionately much faster than the pay of working people, small owners and pensioners.
This social contrast between the very rich and the rest of society is indefensible. When asked about the rise in income at the very top of society the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, did not defend it but he did not condemn it. His reply, in substance, was that the ‘top people' should exercise responsibility.
He offered this reply at a time when the government were denying the prison officers a very modest annual increase of 2.5 per cent recommended by an official pay review body. The government was insisting that this should be staged, the effect of which would be to reduce the annual increase to 1.9 per cent.
Pay review bodies, the members of whom are appointed by ministers, are normally set up where real collective bargaining is denied to the workforce — as, for example, the armed forces — or where the right to strike is forbidden by law. This latter provision applies to prison officers.
There is no justification for the government's attitude to the recommendation made for the pay of prison officers. By no stretch of reason can it be argued that the recommended increase is unjustified. It is less than the average annual increase of other workers and it is very much less than the top people in British companies have given themselves this year. Why does a Labour government act in this way? It is wrong and the whole labour movement should say so.