COHSE conference passed a resolution in 1969 to ensure COHSE officers had cars and increase mobility and speed of officers.
Northumberland in the maintenance Department (joined COHSE March 1965)
Ken Livingstone MP for Brent East with COHSE placard at the opening of the new Psychiatric Unit on the Central Middlesex Hospital site Circa early 1989. (With Barbar Young).
Carles Martinez
Akers taking on the Tories
COMMON WEALTH AND THE BEVERIDGE REPORT
Principles of the Report-
Why the Report should be adopted.
Common Wealth maintains that the Report should be adopted for the following reasons:—
(a) Because it is morally right that all men and women who through no fault of their own are unable to work, or are otherwise in need, should be provided for by the rest of the community.
(b) Because national unity depends upon its acceptance: the vast majority of the nation want to see the Report carried into effect.
(c) Because the adoption of the Beveridge Plan will prove to the world at large that
(d) Because it will add power and speed to the war effort if the fighters are given something to fight for, and the workers something to work for. The Plan is in itself only a token of the world they want, but it will serve to show them that they are not coming back to the tragic conditions which followed the last war.
(e) Because the Plan gets rid of the profit-motive in social insurance.
(f) Because the scheme set out in the Report is a rational simplification of the complicated and wasteful machinery now in existence.
(g) Because the Report is a step towards the sort of new society that the people want.
Why the Beveridge Plan in itself is not enough.
At the same time we must never lose sight of the fact that the Beveridge Plan, even it fully carried out, is a step forward only in a limited field and that by itself it raises none of the fundamental political, social, and economic issues facing
We must therefore firmly resist the propaganda which suggests that the Beveridge Plan is in any way an alternative to the basic re-organisation of
We must, then, while fighting for the Plan, nevertheless be on our guard against the suggestion that the Plan is the last word in social reform. Beveridge himself says that he was asked only to solve the least difficult of Britain’s reconstruction problems. The Plan is a beginning, not an end: it is a basis for further democratic advance, but it is not a revolution.
This caution is necessary since it is quite possible that the present Government, or some reactionary grouping of the future, may use the Plan as a trap. They may try to represent the Beveridge Report as the last word in social reform, an anteroom to
Common Wealth therefore urges the people of Britain not to walk into the reactionary trap: to welcome the Beveridge Plan as an important .top forward in one particular field of social policy, but to see to it that Britain, instead of taking one halting step forward, shall go. on advancing with seven-league boots towards vital democracy and common ownership, to the building of a people’s world.
Would the Plan work under Capitalism?
In theory the Plan could be applied without disturbing the capitalist order; Beveridge is not convinced that common .ownership is the necessary fundamental basis for a democratic economic reconstruction. But against this there are several important facts to show that, whereas the Plan might be made to work under Capitalism by conscripting labour, it, would work much more certainly and smoothly under a, system based on the common ownership of the great resources.
I—The Plan “assumes the maintenance of employment and theprevention of mass unemployment.” It requires that unemployment shall not much exceed 1,500,000, and the abolition of “unemployment prolonged year after year for the same individual.” Obviously any such social security measure cannot be financed if too many are drawing benefits from it. Common Wealth, however, is convinced that mass unemployment cannot ‘be avoided for more than a few years after the war at most, so long as the great resources of the country remain in private hands, except by applying Fascist compulsion to the workers. Common ownership is the only final remedy ‘against mass unemployment. Once all the resources of the country appear on a single balance sheet it is obvious that the country will keep all its workers employed. The establishment of common ownership would cut out all but residual unemployment, and would thus so reduce the ‘costs of administering the Plan that it would probably be possible to’ halve the period during which the pension rates are to mature. The Government speakers in the recent debate were sceptical as to how such a plan could be financed: and rightly so. The present system provides no cure for unemployment, and the capitalists consequently foresee great difficulties in financing the scheme.
II.—Capitalism has nothing but intimidation and compulsion to use as “an effective safeguard against the abuse of unemployment benefit “ (to quote Sir John Anderson). That is why the Government is afraid to accept the Beveridge recommendations concerning unemployment and disability benefit. These, the Government maintains, “will have to be of limited duration,” presumably giving place to public assistance subject to a means test. In fact Capitalism is so morally bankrupt that it has to fall back on the fear of destitution as the spur to induce men to work.
It is true that so long as the people have no sense of owning their- country, so long as they do. not feel production to be “their show, “ some abuse of any social security scheme must be expected. This is the inevitable response of the workers to the profit-snatching of the owners. But once the country really belongs to the people, and improved production means a genem.1 rise m the standard of living for all (or the building up of facilities in which all share), dodging work becomes a social crime which the workers themselves will unanimously condemn. Piece-rates will no longer be regarded as a whip, but as a stimulus. The experience of the
III.—Maximum production after the war will give us not only the means for working the Beveridge Plan, but for all the other, measures that should accompany it. Maximum production, however, cannot be attained after the drive of war has passed-though nothing less than maximum production will suffice in post-war
The Trade Unions, instead of having to squander much of their energies infighting the “bosses” on .behalf of the “workers,” will be able to devote their activity towards fulfilling the national production plan, while still protecting the interests of their members. An industry harmoniously run and highly productive will more than compensate for the changes in
IV.—The Government spokesmen approved of Beveridge’s suggestions for compulsory training and his demand that labour must be kept fluid after the war. These, indeed, are essential conditions for an island such as ours, where resources of men and material may often have to be switched over from one industry to another, not only to meet our own internal needs, but in response to the changing demands of foreign countries.
But will not many workers be unwilling to change their jobs, especially if this means changing their place of residence, so long as the main reason for doing so, appears to. be that of benefiting the balance-sheets of private owners? It is only when they .see that the .transfer of their service is going to benefit the whole community that they will be willing to transfer, where necessary, and that compulsion will thus become unnecessary.
V.—The Government is afraid of accepting the Beveridge pension proposals because it is aware that the average age of the nation is constantly rising, and that when the number of pensioners relative to the number of workers has passed a certain point the cost of pensions will become unmanageable.
This increase in age is due to the fall in the birth-rate, and this in turn is due to our present economic system. While Capitalism was expanding the birth-rate rose; now that Capitalism is increasingly restrictive the rate is steadily falling. Allowances for children cannot cure this.
Once again, the experience of the
The Government’s attitude to the Report.
The tragedy of the Government’s attitude to the Report, as it has been so far disclosed, is that the ‘scheme, as, the Government propose to amend it, would no longer be a real social security measure—in spite of Mr. Morrison’s claim that 70 per cent. of the Report is left intact. Sir Kingsley Wood spoke of “priorities.” Priority No. 1 in the Government mind is that private ownership shall not be touched. Not only the insurance companies, but “the position of the big voluntary hospitals must be safeguarded, “ and also the “ well-being and integrity of the medical profession.” The means test is to be retained for the unemployed and the disabled, industrial disability pensions (up to a maximum of £3 plus allowance for children) are declared to be “difficult to justify.” The essential principles of. adjusting benefit to the prevailing cost of living is brushed aside as “very difficult if not impracticable.” Children’s allowances are cut down to the extent of 1/6 per head per week (even if the Government’s promise of services worth 2/6 is carried into effect). The scheme for retirement pensions is so altered as to cancel the aim of the Report, that is,- of ultimately providing a genuine maintenance rate. In spite of Mr. Morrison’s assurances, in fact, what will be left, if these amendments are adopted, is something which the Government would have had to concede had the Report never .been written. Nothing is left to inspire men’; nothing to make man’s hopes of the future rise high; nothing to make the Report what it should have been: “a landmark not only in
Sir William himself, writing in The Observer (February 28’th, 1943) has said: “My Plan takes as its aim abolition of Want. The Government in regard to pensions wholly, and in regard to children’s .allowances and to unemployment and disability benefit to a lesser extent, abandon that aim.”
The reactionaries have opposed the Report for a number of reasons. Sir Kingsley Wood (who was the champion of the insurance companies against Lloyd George when he tried to establish a State funeral grant in 1911) slammed the door on it with some jubilation, as though welcoming the opportunity of rapping the knuckles of those who are daring to expect something better than the 1939 world after the war. Those whose particular vested interests were threatened opposed it for personal reasons; those who are afraid of yielding to any popular demand, in case it starts a landslide, opposed the Report on principle. Others again, although they do not ‘actually want men to go hungry and would like to put through a real social security measure in order to strengthen the position of the ruling group, are afraid to do so because they are beginning to see that if the plan is to be worked properly it will involve doing away with our present system and substituting common ownership—for every major objection that was raised in the debate falls to pieces once we start to think in terms of common ownership of the great resources and a national plan for production democratically drawn up and fulfilled.
We must oppose any watering-down of the Plan, especially as it was drawn up to supply only minimum subsistence.
We must not allow ourselves to be deceived by the plea .that the Plan, even if adopted in full, is sufficient, and that
We must work to bring about common ownership as the goal towards which the Report leads, and as the only order under which the proposals of the report can be put into effect smoothly, certainly, and democratically.
We must remember that the Report itself says: “Freedom from want cannot be forced on a democracy or given to a democracy. It must be won by them. Winning it needs courage and faith and a sense of national unity; courage to face facts and difficulties and overcome them; faith in our future and in the ideals of fair-play and freedom for which century after century our forefathers were prepared to die; a sense of national unity over-riding the interests of .any class or section."
We must fight for the whole Plan now as the first' step towards the sort of World the people want.
WE WON'T LET THEM SHELVE ST.
Approved by
The National Committee of Common Wealth Party,
Published By
C. W. Publishing, Ltd.,
Printed By
J. B. Mackie & Co. Ltd.,
From the Bradford Telegraph & Argus, first published Friday 14th Feb 2003.
FAMILY legend has it that baby Judith Carter's first word was not Mummy, not even Daddy. It was "why"? And 59 years later, she is still asking why after one of the biggest disappointments in a hectic life full of challenges and setbacks.
For Judith, chief executive of Skipton and Craven Action for Disability (I shall explain the title later) has just received an extremely unwelcome kick in the teeth from people whose job in life, allegedly, is to do good.
Those fine people from the National Lottery Community Fund, which is sitting on hundreds of millions of unspent money, have refused SCAD a grant of more than £100,000 which would have gone to help hundreds of severely disabled people have an outing that otherwise would be beyond their dreams - a day's boating on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal.
Yet SCAD already has a promise of £25,000 from Barclays Bank plus £9,000 its own members have collected - and could this spring be well on the way to replacing its ageing canal barge so that it can take more disabled people on more trips.
"I am absolutely gutted," Judith told me at SCAD's bustling offices over its charity shop in Newmarket Street. "This sort of money is just peanuts to the Lottery but they have rejected our bid because, they say, we have not established a need for the service.
"Yet disabled people have been coming from all over the North for 11 years to sail the canal. These bureaucrats should see the looks of sheer joy on our passengers' faces when they get onto the water - that would tell them that there is a need for this unique service."
I should warn Lottery officials that they have a fight on their hands.
For Judith Carter has spent her entire working life battling authority - and most of the time, she has won.
Born in Bradford during the war, one of twin sisters, she won a scholarship to grammar school and then was launched on what was to be a civil service career by her father, a GPO engineer.
She hated it and was looking for a new career when she met and married her soon-to-be long suffering husband David and quickly had two of their three children.
He was a Lancastrian whose family had a retail furniture business and she moved to East Lancashire, starting a War of the Roses which continues to this day (more of that later, too).
With her children at school, she found a new career in nursing in Burnley and suddenly came up against what she describes "as an absolutely nonsensical regime run on absolute, unquestioning discipline and fear."
She recalls: "Matron in those days was a tyrant. Doctors were gods. We had to do things which were never explained and often seemed quite wrong. So I began to ask why - and quickly got myself a reputation as a troublemaker.
"Other nurses began to ask me to take up complaints on their behalf so I thought I might as well join the union. By the time I left as organiser of the Burnley branch, it had 800 members."
The union was the Confederation of Health Service Employees (COHSE) and soon she was being pressed to take up a paid role - only to run into another wall of opposition: fellow officials who were all male. "I was looked upon as some sort of freak," she shrugs.
She got her paid job eventually - but at a huge cost. She was turned down as a regional organiser in the North West, on her doorstep, and was instead posted to London, where she worked, miserable and alone, whilst her family stayed in Barrowford.
Eventually, that became too much - "There were a lot of people who thought I would quit" - so after a year, David moved the family down south and they moved to Hampshire.
That had its problems, too. David got a job with the local ambulance brigade and ended up as a senior manager. Then came a strike by drivers, who Judith represented, and they ending up facing each other on opposite sides of the negotiating table!
Judith's career went from strength to strength and she ended up as a national organiser and negotiator, being invited for beer and sandwiches at 10 Downing Street. She even sat down to tea with the Queen.
However, when COHSE joined with two local government unions to form Unison, she decided enough was enough. David took early retirement and they decided to come back north. But where?
She laughs: "David wanted Lancashire but I was determined to return to my native Yorkshire. In the end, we bought a house in Tosside which is just in Craven - but when David walks to the pub, he crosses the border into Lancashire."
Both were determined to relax but it was David who got bored first. With his background, he was welcomed with open arms when he volunteered to drive one of SCAD's three minibuses.
Judith was intrigued so she joined too. She took the title chief executive last year when SCAD became a company for complex insurance reasons.
"There is so much red tape surrounding charities and we had discovered that our trustees, who are all volunteers, might face huge financial penalties, even lose their homes, if something went wrong. You cannot expect volunteers to take that sort of risk."
Red tape, too, is part of the reason for SCAD's need to replace their canal boat, the Marjorie Charlesworth, named after the association's late founder. To refurbish it to meet the latest safety standards would cost £30,000, which members felt was too much to spend on an 11-year-old craft.
Well, the bureaucrats want to scupper that plan too. They would rather have loss-making opera houses, millennium domes or bent bridges, it would appear. Methinks they are in for a shock when Judith Carter gets on the phone
Hillingdon Health Emergency Leaflet
Hayes Cottage Hospital will be open this Christmas, and every other Christmas
On the evening of Tuesday 25th October 1983 the staff at Hayes Cottage Hospital occupied in a bid to keep the hospital open. This action uas taken after a lot
of thought but it was clearly the only way to stop the closure after other avenues had been exhausted.
The reaction of the people of Hayes has been really magnificent. We have had visitors coming round with food, supplies and money. Messages of support have
been flooding in from all over
The best bit of news recently has been that the G.P's connected with the hospital are to start admitting patients again so we will be running just as before. Certainly, the patients in the Cottage Hospital are solidly behind the "work-in. Fifteen of them have signed a petition demanding the retention of the hospital and one patient has insisted that if any attempt is made to move her she intends to die in the ambulance......
Our aim in this struggle is to force the District Health Authority to take their proposals for cuts out to full public consultation. We believe that the people of Hillingdon have a right to a say in the sort of Health Service that is provided instead of a totally undemocratic and unaccountable group of individuals dictating from on high.
We believe that we are going to win the battle for Hayes Cottage Hospital but to do so we need the help of the ordinary people of Hayes. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO GUARD THE GATES, DAY AND NIGHT. We also need letters going to the DHA demanding that no violence will be used and that patients will not be forcibly removed against their will. This is a real possibility and it must not be allowed.
Hayes Cottage Hospital is an integral part of the community in this area. It provides a type and a quality of care that is not available at a big unit like Hillingdon. Closing our hospital will mean that many old people and parents will have long journeys if they need medical treatment. These cuts are going
to hit most those people that need the IMHS while the people With the money Will have their own private care. THIS MUST NOT BE ALLOLWED. The NHS Was set up through the struggle and toil of our older folk and we pay for it through our taxes. In any civilised society decent health care should be a right not left to charity.
HELP US DEFEND THE HEALTH SERVICE. HELP US SAVE HAYES COTTAGE HOSPITAL.
The Hillingdon Health Emergency Campaign had a spontaneous beginning. Members of the public had attended a meeting of the Regional Health Authority on
Hayes and Northwood and Pinner.
There were immediate protests from the public gallery and four people were ejected from the meeting. Later an impromptu meeting of the protesters took place in the Civic Centre electing a committee which immediately went into action to arouse public opinion and protest against the cuts.
Leaflets were produced; public meetings held; petition forms distributed, resulting in thousands of signatures. Letters were written to the press, M.P.'s, Councillors and other public figures inviting their support.
Trade union branches were heavily involved and asked to support, both financially and physically. To date, nearly £1000 has been raised. The support received from the public has given a great boost to the campaign, which stepped up its supporting activity following the decision by the Staff to occupy the two threatened hospitals.
It is the policy of the Committee that the campaign against Health service cuts will continue, whatever the outcome at Hayes and Northwood. They therefore continue to ask for public support and feel sure that it will be forthcoming.
Hilllngdon needs its Health Service. Support the Campaign.
Hillingdon Health Emergency (GLC Funded) 2a
Steve Clare Secretary Hillingdon Health Emergency:
Marjorie Bayne NUPE Hayes Cottage Hospital Steward (blonde-right in photo)
Sylvia Tebbenham NUPE Hayes Cottage Hospital Steard (Left in photo)
Supported by unions at EMI, KODAK, Express Dairy (TGWU), NALGO,NUPE, AUEW and Tenants & Pensioners Groups
COHSE Hillingdon & District branch General Election leaflet circa 1987
The Conservative Government have since 1979 systematically attacked and undermined Hillingdon's health services, recently a further three hospital -wards and a clinic were closed by Hillingdon District Health Authority.
Since 1979 the effect of this policy in Hillingdon has been:
Over 300 hundred hospital closed
Uxbridge Cottage Hospital closed
St. Johns Hospital closed
7,656 patients on the waiting list
Furthermore, only a determined 'work-in' by hospital staff and the support of the community saved Hayes Cottage and Northwood & Pinner Cottage Hospitas from closure.
Health workers now believe that only the Labour Party cares, and is fully committed to the future of our health services, after all it was the Labour who established the in 1946.
We therefore urge all caring people to support the Labour Party's campaign to save our health service - if the Tories are re-elected with Edwina. Currie as for Health, the future would be very bleak for the health service user. There would be more health cuts, more privatisation and the gradual dismantling of the NHS.
Published by M.Walker COHSE Branch Secretary
Printed by Hillpress 11, Clayton Road, Hayes
t).
46 of the 3,000 women who served as "nursing sisters" in the Canadian Army Medical Corps lost their lives during the war. Of info available, six were killed or mortally wounded (of which three died in the deliberate bombing of the military hospital in Étaples, France); 15 died at sea, with the sinking of the hospital ship, Llandovery Castle; 15 died of disease; and seven died later in Canada
Alpaugh. A
Baker. M. E
Baker. M. E
Cumming. I.
Dagg.
Donaldson. G.
Dussault. A.
Follette. M. A.
Forneri. A. F.
Fortescue. M. J.
Fraser. M. M.
Frederickson. C.
Gallaher. M. K.
Grant.G. M.
Herman .V. B.
Henshaw. I.
Hunt. M.
Jaggard. J. B.
Jarvis. J.
Jenner. L. M.
Kealy. I. L.
King. J. N.
MacIntosh. R.
MacLeod. M.
McDiarmid .J. M.
McDougall .A.
McEachen. R.
McGinnis. M. G.
McKay. E. V.
McKenzie. M. A.
Mellett. H.
Munro. M. F. E
Roberts. J.
Ross. A. J.
Ross E. G.
Sampson. M. B.
Sare. G. I.
Sparks. E.
Stamers. A. I.
Templeman. J.
Trusdale. A.
Tupper. A. A.
CANADIAN ARMY NURSING SERVICE
Garbutt S. E (20 August 1917) K/N
Green. M (9 October 1918) Disease
Lowe. M (28 May 1918) wounds
MacDonald. K.M. (19 May 1918) wounds
MacPherson. A (30 May 1918) wounds
Pringle. E.L (30 May 1918) wounds
Wake G. M.M (21 May 1918) wounds
Whitely. A (21 April 1918) wounds
For a superb account of nurses in WW1 read "It's a long way to Tipperary " (British & Irish nurses in the Great War) by Yvonne McEwen
Michael Walker
UNISON The Nursing Union - London
