The Press TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1943. Stabilisation

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23944, 11 May 1943, Page 4

The Press TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1943. Stabilisation

The Gazette of May 6 carried an inconspicuous announcement by the Government Statistician to the effect that the new war-time price index stood at ,1011 on March 15 (base 1000, December 15), representing a three-months increase of 1.1 per cent, in the price of the consumption goods indexed. The statistician has done his part; it was not within his duty to do more. Why has not the Government, why has not the Stabilisation Commission, heeded, explained, and used this occasion? When the stabilisation plan was introduced, in December, the Prime Minister stated clearly and forcibly why it was necessary, how it was to work, and what it would demand. It demands above all, as he insisted, the intelligent co-operation of all sections of the public. There can be no such co-operation unless understanding is created and confirmed. The Minister of Supply followed the Prime Minister, giving an account of the new war-time price index. The old retail price index had been found unreliable; the new one would reflect accurately the movement of prices over a wider range of necessary goods and services; every effort would be made to prevent an over-all rise: if some prices had to be raised, others would be reduced. Nevertheless, if an over-all rise of 2.5 per cent, were recorded, the Arbitration Court would issue an order adjusting wages accordingly. After that, a rise of 5 per cent, would be required to unlock wages. The index, therefore, is centrally important in the stabilisation plan. As it holds or lifts, the lock on wages and salaries will hold or give, and the plan will work or fail. But almost nothing, since December, has been done to make this plain. The public should see in the index a faithful check on the result of the controls established in their interest. They cannot see anything in it at all, until they have been shown that the character of the plan and its controls is equitably protective; that it is the function of the index to report on them, giving an assurance or a warning as may be necessary; why it can be trusted to do so; and how they can, and why they should, assist to keep the index stable. Some of these demonstrations may appear to be difficult: how, for example, is the public to be persuaded to trust a price index? Not by a technical lecture, certainly; but just as certainly, illustrative family budgets, based on the index groups and prices, can be used to show how it is compiled, to verify it, and to exhibit its usefulness. The critical importance of economic stability to the public, however, has been matched in five months by no effort to win intelligent public support for the policy to achieve it. Worse, the policy has suffered'two dangerous set-backs, entirely due to bad preparation for it. The public .has,attributed them to irresolution. Nothing has been done to correct this dangerous impression. Parliament met and rose early this year without a single reference to an experiment launched after it had sat last. The public concluded, or was entitled to conclude, that the policy was worth as much consideration as Parliament gave it. The first issue of the new index was an opportunity to retrieve lost ground. It was an occasion, which should on no account have been neglected, to begin the work of publicity without which public opinion will not sustain the policy, or the Government in its policy. This neglect is frightening, for it is difficult to see what it can mean, if not that the Government is halfhearted about stabilisation or that the Government is still too complacently dull to realise difficulties and dangers and counter them in time. And if half hearts or dull wits are in charge, the policy will founder.