THE MISERY: WHAT OF THE STRENGTH?

Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24801, 15 February 1946, Page 4

THE MISERY: WHAT OF THE STRENGTH?

BRITAIN TO-DAY

[By E- F. SCHUMACH ER in the “Observer.”] (Published by Arrangement.)

There is undoubtedly, at the present time, a wave of pessimism. Wars always breed disenchantment and peace always suckles it. Let us grant a fairly common anger at what seem to be needless muddles, frustrations, and delays. The months go by and visible progress towards plenty is small enough. People are sick of officialism: they are permit-weary and blistered by the constant rub of red tape that seems to inhibit all initiative, all desire to expand, move on. recover )Br Churchill’s “Strength Through Misery” is a phrase that stings, and it is true enough to stick. That is the surface feeling, the stirface irritation. But we have to look for truth under the fretted skin. What are the social and economic realities lower down? On these we must base our judgment. Let us admit some of the Misery: what about the Strength? Into War and Out Consider the time-table. It took two years to get 2,000,000 people out of the typical peace-time industries and fit them into munitions production and the armed forces. It took over three years to mobilise 2,000,000 women not previously engaged as wage-earners. While the reverse movement could be expected to proceed much faster, it is bound also to take time—more timft than the natural impatience of an overstrained population might easily allow for. How, in fact, are things moving? Nearly 4,000,000 men and women will have been fitted into new occupations and activities by the end of the year—in not much over six months. This great (and almost silent) industrial revolution goes on with only a trickle of labour unrest, with a loss of working time through strikes much less heavy than that sustained, during the most decisive period of the offensive after D-Day last year and less than one-twelfth as heavy as during the same period after the last war. Shortages—and Tooling Up

Civilian goods remain scarce, just as military goods remained scarce during the first few years of war. Demobilisation leave accounts for a two-month interval between a man’s leaving the Army and his start as a civilian producer. Changing types and objects of production itself fakes time. Britain produced only 2900 tank machine-guns

in 1940, but 23,800 in 1942; only 6000 armoured cars in 1940, but 24,400 ip Houses remain scarce, as a result not only of the war but also of long neglect during better days. Temporary houses, however, are now being completed at eight times the rate of four months ago; the rate is now 500 a week and fast increasing. The full drive for permanent houses must await the building weather of soring, but mean- . while the Ministry of Works and the Ministry of Supply, working out of the public’s sight, are placing enormous orders for materials and house components of all kinds, to be ready for the spring. Every traffic expert knows that the quick movement of large masses is possible only if, at any moment of time, some people stand still. This is exasperating for those affected, and it can also be overdone. But the alternative is chaos which stops everyone in a jam. Speed is much, but not everything, and it gets us where we want to get only if the road is kept reasonably clear. Legislative Design Meanwhile some changes in our economic system not, of course, without risk, have also their promise. The Ministry of Supply, using bulk purchase at home and abroad, may assist the reduction of prices. The decision to maintain the Ministry of Food and selected food subsidies will aid an effective nutrition policy even after food rationing has' disappeared—to the gen-, eral satisfaction. Agricultural policy - s may greatly increase agricultural efficiency. The Chancellor’s systematic policy of reducing rates of interest lightens the “burden” of the national 1 debt. Selective nationalisation, plus control of investment expenditure, develops a pattern whose object is economic stability, instead of alternating boom and slump. There is plenty to show that the legislation of to-day is not haphazard meddling.” or the hazy improvisation of doctrinaires, but is part of a new ; and considered design. This, given totSgrity arid vigour on the part of the Government, vigilance on the part of the Opposition, and readiness in Whitehall to take notice of sound criticism, may win us the social strength of tomorrow without prolonging the personal misery of to-day.