Socialist Outlook wants your letters! If you feel moved to write — and we hope you will - please try and keep to a maximum of 300 words. Send to: PO Box 705,
Share nonsense? Lear comrades, Jamie Gough'e article. 'Shar-owning democracy?? (Seriali Outiond 4) was to the point and — in the light of thie crash - timely.
Bur what is the real effect of the fuge increase since 1979 (three-fold, according to Gough) in the number of people in Britain holding shares?
On Gough's own figures, 20 per cent of the adult population now own shares. That sounds like quite a lot ol shareowners to me.
Of course, share ownership duesn't reguire a conversion to "Thatcherite' values (a point on which lagree with Gough) but it does ecosage it (thic point on which we disagree). People who own shares have i stake, and interest, in the well-being of capitalismi, and in the proficability of the computes in which they have those shares. It's wistful-thinking to equare the share owner's investment with char of the building sociery book holder: building society and bank deposit actount, are wirely abour a guaranteed, modest and stable return (and
"DESIGNER 2OCLJI2M"
London SWI9 1HA.
a nroessity in many cased for salaried workers), shares 2 much higher risk.
higher-return gamble directly on somebody else's livelihood.
And as long as the Tories can couvurce people that thry ran run capitdisin mure efficiently and profftably than Labuur
(which of course they can) then
20 per cent of the electorate have an immediate financial interest in returning them to number 10, That, lor the
Tories, is the point of the policy
Not every share holder:
immediuely becomes a Tory
The incredible cavort hormlessly in the potting shed, mouthing amiable gobbledigook, warned by the ever-nervous Little Weed formula. Since June the Tory gardeners', intent upon their to toil almost undisturbed.
has been so little popular campoigning by Labour on such savage attacks on local government, union rights, social security, the unemployed, the NHS, the pall tax, press lesbian rights, the black communities and civil liberties!
Instead, Neil and Bryan come out occasionally to play of them spot the labels used by the Tories to attack the left, and try to use them too — with whacky results!
mysterious clues to what hos happened policy reviews, surcharged Labour councillors, and demoralised Labour voters.
to offer any audience.
with demands for o video. But unless we ore coreful, 'The
Frontbench Men' could run and run e
JOHN LISTER voter, and esrending share ownership to the working riass does not fundamentally restricture its relationslup to capital. Rot in the absence of an arractivh alternative cooponue role model. and without even a contiocus counter argument, the relaricely munior economic
"benefits' brought by share uwnerxhap.can open Hie door to d lundatuental restructuring if values (if not class) which will take cars lo redress:
Janc Wells shrinking opposition
THE ANTICS of Bill and Ben the flowerpot men seem to have inspired the tactics of Neil and Bryan the "frontbench team'
Yesteryear's kiddies' tv heroes used to wait until the man who works in the garden want to lunch, before emerging to
When the gardener returned, he found only little tell-tale signs of the strange activity that had token place: Bill and Ben
- had returned to
Today's trendy Labour leaders have hardly varied the work of pruning, uprooting and restructuring, have been able
Who would believe that there is on opposition, when there freedom, council housing, education, obortion rights, goy and stupidly with some of the tools and materials left lying around
Silly Bryan picks up share ownership, gurgles and clowns around. Neil finds a few Tory voters to play with. Then both
When the Tory gardeners come back, they find just o few
Despite featuring Marxism Today in the role of Litrie Weed and the TUC as Slowcoach the Tortoise, "Flowerpot 2' hos little
Unlike the original show, the BBC is unlikely to be deluged
What right have 60
Year old
AS men tote
15 year old
DIES girl what todo?
Young women march against the Gillick ruling 1985 - they will be especailly hard-hit if Alton's bill succeeds
ABORTION likcly: co:
THE JAMES WHErE bill Tell a the end if October 1975 following the establisti ment of a select committee to look at the proposals. Among other things. White. a Labour MP, wanted to amend the social clause in the 1967 act, to introduce beensing for referral agencies and reduce the upper tume limit from 28 to 20 wecks. The White bill was deleared for several reasons; it Was very long anil complicated and the overwhelming balk of the evidence presented to the select committee wak agaiest it. During its rather long passage through parliament the anti-abortionists scored an imporant own goal with the publication of a trunk called Babies for Burning, a typical piece of anti-abortion propaganda winch was exposed as a pack of lies and did them a lot of damage
Of course finally the Will was de leated by mars action coordinated by the hewly firmed National Abortion Campaign (NACT) which organised a 20,000-strong demonstration in June 1975 and which forced the TUC and the national Tabour women's advisory committee to take a position against the hill. This in turn put massive pressure on Labour MPs as the following extract from Issue No S8 of the feminist journal Spare Rib demonstrares: *Mr Tan Wrigglesorth, the Labour and Co-operative MP for Thatnabv, voted for James White on Februan 7, but, like an mereasing number of other. MPs withr majorities of lew than 5,000, he is unvote for hum agan. Wrigglesworth said, "the situation had changed since the hill was drafted"
William Benyon, the ill-fated Convervative MP for Buckingham, was the nest io be tempted into a major challenge to womehi's nights. His bill, whach got is second and final reading on 25 February 1937 songht Weake it more diflesh for doctors to recommend abortion to give police access to medical files and to reduce the tune amit to 20 weeks, As with the White bill. it never gor to a third reading, largely shrough tihbustering by pro-choice MPs. The anti-abortionists were also greatly divided over the Benyon bill NAC. ALRA and a group st women within it (Feminists Against Fenon—FAB) orgunised various activities and were simultancouse contering un fighting the cicets of cuts in the health service on abortion prossin.
When in 1979 women again took 10 che streets in delianre of abortion righos and against the latest bill being proposed by John Corric MP. the situation seemed a lot less aspicious for an eat anel nat victory- A Tory goverument was un
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK: no 5 January February 10HE