POLITICIANS AND EXPERTS

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 41, 17 August 1917, Page 6

POLITICIANS AND EXPERTS

The difference between the Government and the National Efficiency Board is very largely the difference between economics and politics. While the economist works by principles, the politician has to consider persons and interests and votes^; the one endeavours to prescribe in accordance with economic facts, the other compromises to meet political circumstances. ■ Between the two there is a gap which will never disappear as long as human nature and the system, of party politics remain unaltered. To moralise thus does not, however, exclude the possibility of narrowing the gap, and this was one of the purposes for which the National Government was formed. It represented in- the first place an attempt to eliminate or reduce the party element in politics, so that this first and foremost of political brakes upon statesmanlike legislation might be cut away. How far the effort to place State above party has succeeded is a matter of opinion. Dr. Newman, one of the sharpest of the critics, complains, in effect, that the two sides represented in the Government have succeeded in pooling their bad rather than their good points; "one side proposes and tie other disposes." But his criticism certainly exceeds the limit of judgment when he pronounces the National Government inferior to the Reform Government. For the situation created by the war the present co-operation is certainly better than Reform alone, and almost certainly the best arrangement that could be obtained. It suffers from the weaknesses of all compromises, and the disappearance of the Opposition has not been an unmixed blessing, because until .recently constauctrve criticism was not sufficiently active; and the Government lost, in the absence of the critical impetus, something of what it had gained in the removal of Parliamentary obstruction. But, weighed up, the National Government has a big balance on' the right side. What other- Government would have carried compulsory service ? Lately the National Government has needed a spur to drive it to the constructive work of efficiency. That spur is being applied both inside and outside the House—inside by various criticisms, just or unjust; outside by the conditional resignation of the National Efficiency Board. A political genius, while not swallowing the Board's strenuous medicine holus bolns, would select sufficient from the recommended measures and policies to create a practical and positive programme. Whether such a genius exists in the National Government remains to be seen. On Wednesday we asked whether the Parliamentary Committee appointed to consider the cost of living is to waste time by attempting to do over again the work of tho National Efficiency Board and the Board of Trade, or whether its purpose is "to take the advice of the expert Boards and, by some process of secondary manufacture, make them more assimilable to the political digestion?" If the Board's recommendations are to go successfully through this secondary process, losing some of their political impracticability without sacrificing all their economic virtue, the transformation should be effected by the Government itself. As we pointed out on Wednesday, it cannot transfer its responsibility to any committee, though a committee might conceivably be helpful; especially if its personnel were stronger than that of the selection as at first announced. In the last resort —and this is now not far removed— the duty of doing something devolves on the Government. It has right and power to discriminate, but will be very unwise if it does nothing. If the Government acts along some of the lines suggested by the two Boards, it will not thereby be surrendering its authority; but it will be in danger of such a surrender if it does not act at all. Perhaps the Prime. Minister, in closer conference with the Boards, will see his way clearer. If so, the gentle pressure will not have been applied in vain.