A look at our rulers

Scan page 11

In Wilson's footsteps? JOHN SCOTT argues that the ruling class in Britain is very small, and moreover that its core — 'a group within the class which is able to act on behalf of the class' — is smaller still.

The 100 largest companies, he points out, accounted for 45% of all output in manufacturing by 1970 - as against 10% in the 1880s. The class dominating the largest companies, he says, is the dominant class.

Taking even the 1,000 largest companies, "the directors, top executives and principal shareholders would, together with their immediate families, number between 25,000 and 50,000 people . . • less than 0.1% of the population."

Within this 'business class' John Scott argues that the pivotal role is played by the 'finance capitalists' , defined as those who have major interests in two or more separate companies. He estimates this group at no more than 200 to 300 families.

class, he says, is a 'service Surrounding the 'business class _ managers other than the top managers and top professionals. This class is maybe 10% of the population.

Scott also identifies a core 'status group' within the business class 'the establishment'. . He is not explicit on how he sees the relation between this core group and the core group of finance capitalists. Nor does he demonstrate that the 'establishment' is in fact entirely contained within his narrowlydefined business class, rather than overlapping with the service class.

But he cites some striking figures which show how the public school/Oxbridge connection continues to dominate the No more than 200 families dominate the central sections of the British economy and hold sway over the whole society, according to a recently-published book. Martin Thomas reviews then unless otherwise indicated].

Of the directors of the largest industrial companies, one half went to public schoels. In the financial sector, the percentage is higher. Three-quarters of the directors of clearing banks went to public school, one-third to Eton alone.

Four judges in five went to public schools: In 1963, just four schools accounted for two judges in every five.

These proportions are not decreasing markedly. The public school percentage in the upper ranks of the armed forces bas, on the contrary, increased. 90% of army officers of the rank of Lieutenant-General and above have been to public schools.

Among civil servants of the rank of under-secretary and above, two-thirds went to public schools; among ambassadors to major countries, four-fifths.

Tory MPs show a similar pattern of backgrounds. Scott gives figures or the 1974-9 Parliament 73% public school, 55% Oxbridge. There has been some shift since then. In the current Parliament, only 50% of the 100 new Tory MPs Become a supporter of the Socialist Organiser Alliance - groups are established in most large towns. We ask £1.50 a are from public school, 34% from Oxbridge. Of the 297 others, 68% are public school, 51% Oxbridge.

58% of the 297 are company directors. [Figures from Labour Research, August 1983].

Land

A large part of John Scott's book covers the historical development of the British upper classes from the 12th century to today. Most of this is too summary and sketchy to be much use. He does, however, give some interesting facts on the 19th century.

In the early years of the 19th century, a landowning oligarchy - presiding over capitalist agriculture — ruled Britain. The industrial capitalists were a new and rising class. By about 1880 the industrialists were economically dominant.

The result was a synthesis. From the 1870s the structure of the ruling class changed in several ways, simultaneously. Landowners were appointed more and more frequently to the boards of joint-stock companies. The civil service became professionalised and the public school/Oxbridge connection became important. Nationallyorganised political parties Bas 20 years ago Harold Wilson defeated George • Brown and Jim Callaghan in the contest developed, landowners lost domination of Parliament.

Thus, John Scott argues, the modern 'business class' was formed, with ideological bonds and props adapted from the old oligarchy.

As a work of social theory, this book is unsatisfactory. It takes it more or less for granted that economic dominance implies political dominance, without examining how this happens. It describes the internal organisation of the upper classes in almost complete abstraction from their struggles against the 'lower' classes. It says nothing about the considerable international ramifications of the propertied classes of Britain.

Its distinction, for example, between the 'business' and the 'service' class, therefore remains pure description, with no theoretical weight.

The value of the book is that it summarises, more or less conveniently, available data on the development of the ruling class. Unfortunately it is less readable, and actually contains less serious research than journalistie books like Anthony Sampson's *Anatomy of Britain' style in the General Election was nothing new. Wilson first introduced it in 1964. He believed in changing Labour's image in order to win elections and modelled his media style very closely on President Kennedy.

The cloth cap Labour image was out. The upwardly mobile section of the working class had to be courted by a Labour leader committed to dynamism and change.

Personalities became more important than politics.

Wilson's record in office was strictly pro-capitalist. In the aftermath of the General Election in 1964, he ordered the expulsion of the majority of the radical youth in the Young Socialists and closed down 'extremist' CLPs. He launched a vicious witch-hunt of militant trade unionists in the National Union of Seamen and effectively broke their strike in 1966.

He supported the American war in Vietnam. He postponed vital social programmes for the benefit of the British economy. He sponsored anti-union legislation. In short, he behaved in office as the messenger boy of the British capitalist class and prepared the way for the defeat of Labour at the polls in 1970.

Will Kinnock be any different?

words he seems much more

----- pull-quotes -----

"The Upper Classes in Britain', by John Scott (Macmillan, £5.95) All figures for 1970 or around