POLITICAL BATTLE RAGING IN BRITAIN

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 134, 9 June 1942, Page 5

POLITICAL BATTLE RAGING IN BRITAIN

COAL INDUSTRY

Post-War Problems Attract Wide Attention Special Correspondent. United Press Association.—Copyright. Rec. 12.30 p.m. LONDON, June 8. Underneath Britain's war effort there are stirrings of political and industrial thoughts of post-war reconstruction. Considerable interest has been taken in recent speeches by Mr. Anthony Eden, Sir Stafford Cripps, Mr. Oliver Lyttelton and also particularly in a speech by the VicePresident of the United States. Mr. Henry Wallace, Miss Frances Perkins, United States Minister of Labour, and Mr. J. G. Winant, United States Ambassador to London. The speeches by the Americans actually have been more warmly welcome. It is felt that they have a greater appeal to the common humanity of the common people.

The Manchester Guardian states: "Mr. Wallace and Mr. Winant charged the words 'a people's war' with a new meaning. It is a war for democracy with a concrete social purpose—the uplifting of the common man."

These speeches, coupled with the coal dispute and the House of Lords debate on the post-war world, also reports of the Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of British Industries, have tended to focus greater attention on post-war problems and they have been given a fillip by the Allies' rather brighter war outlook.

The coal settlement was received with mixed feelings, comments ranging from "reasonably good" in the Observer to "received without enthusiasm" in the Labour Daily Herald. Labour Aim Nationalisation It has been observed that a battle for political power is ranging round the coal industry. One of the reasons for this is that Labour aims at nationalisation of the coal industry. There have consequently ensued discussions regarding vested interests, which delegates to the recent Labour conference considered have far too great a hold of Britain's policy. Thus the weekly New Statesman and Nation regards the coal settlement as "a very unsatisfactory compromise. It is another reminder that the substance of power in Britain still belongs to great vested interests, which are defended by the majority of the House of Commons. Throughout the war not a single key of power has been surrendered by monopoly capital'sm or the 1922 committee. Coal is the test case." The Statesman adds that the most serious defect of the coal reorganisation scheme from the viewpoint of war efficiency is that the owners will continue to assume that the mines will revert into their hands after the war, while the miners will rightly continue to protest that they are working for the private profit of the coal owners

Thus, not the least important aspect oi he coal dispute is that it shows deep 'lifferences of opinion in opposing political camps, which are indicators of tne possible trend of British post-wai domestic politics when socialisation versus vested interests may be one i f the most burning questions. Mixed Reception Given Reports The reports of the chambers of commerce and the Federation of British industries were also givei. a mixed reception, one view being thai they are encouraging because they show a lpnging to look forward, but they are depressing, because they indicate inability to look anyway but backward. The Economist states: "There is the paradox that on the one hand the documents make a notable plea for freedom of expansion, and on the other they paint a picture of control, restraint and restriction both at home and abroad—a picture of national industrial autarky and selfrule by vested interests." * It adds that these business men seem to have lost hope and thrown up the sponge. They see world economy running down. "One main conclusion arising out of the proposals is that British industry is afraid of the united States. Collaboration is called for, but in the F. 8.1, report the principles of the Atlantic Charter and a freer trade movement, which has found spokesmen in the United States, are flatly repudiated." The Financial News, commenting on reconstruction, states: "It is now universally recognised that a sharp deterioration of Britain's balance of payments must be accepted as one of the basic data of any post-war settlement. The proposals cover a wide At one extreme we have the F. 8.1., who would put international trade into the strait jacket of bilateralism, and at the other extreme the United States State Department would provide garments so flowing that countries would be prepared to ship goods abroad without thought of repayment. Common tp both proposals is the tacit assumption that conventional economic machinery cannot be relied on, that credit policy and exchange fluctuations cannot be depended on to regulate international exchanges of goods, nor the orthodox machinery pf overseas investments to regulate international transfers of capital."