Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1920. NATIONALISATION

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 33, 9 February 1920, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1920. NATIONALISATION

Saturday's news indicated that the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the executive of tho British Miners' Federation are still trying to induce Mr. Lloyd George to agree tc nationalisation; but, the cablegram inferred, without achieving very much success. As we have on previous occasions pointed out, " nationalisation " is more often than not a political parrotcry. On the Extreme side, there are a number of Parliamentary parrots who have been taught to say the word; and, parrot-like, they keep on repeating it, in season and out of season, without having any clear idea of what it means. Interpreted in the loose sense in which it is freely used, "nationalisation" is not a plan; it is hardly even a principle; it is a name that can be twisted to suit the politics of idealists and anarchists, of confiscationists and anti-confiscationists, ( and of a number of other irreconcilable persons who have nothing in common except that they profess "nationalisation." If one gets down to bedrock, it has to be recognised at the outset that the moral justice arid the practical success of every scheme of " nationalisation " depends on nos paying the private owner either too little oi too much. In fact, the whole merit of "nationalisation" as a principle—if it can ba called such—depends on the application-of it.

However, we will cut out, as much as possible, these preliminary objections, and we will presume, for the sake of argument, that the kind of nationalisation contemplated by the British Miners' Federation is v purchase of all the important' British coal mines, by the State, at a fair market value; and the management of the mines by civil servants, headed by a Minister, and assisted in 1 committee by - representatives of the miners. Now, it is perfectly cleai that what deters Mr. Lloyd George from putting on the State the responsibility of owning and managing (jointly with the employees) big established industries is not any narrow prejudice against the collective principle, nor any slavish adherence to the old economists»whose god was Private Enterprise. What Mr. Lloyd George is his own experience, as Munitions Minister and Prime Minister, in war and in peace, of the product of labour under State control. Not long ago he told the rationalisers clearly enough that the balance of evidence did not point to greater energy and output by men in public employment than by men in private employment. To put it in other words: experience does not warrant the assumption that State control would release a huge secret profit-fund for the ..raising of wages; that there would be a, consequent rise in the quantity and quality of work done; and that, under the mollifying influences of Government management, trade union restrictions would disappear and every man would work his best. On the other hand, .experience suggests that employees can become just as bitter against Government managers as against private managers. If the collective principle were as sound as. its idolisers suggest, ' the building tvade should be at the summit of production. Nearly everyone wants a house, or a better house; and the workmen in the building trade cannot " go slow " without hurting a huge number of other workers. Yet in November Mr. Lloyd George, in proposing to pay a. Government subsidy of £150 for every approved house built within the next 12 months, pointed out that to subsidise slow-working employees would be quite as unjust as to subsidise profiteering builders; I turn to the figures with regard to the restriction of output. They are perfectly appalling. lam told that if you compare the number of bricks laid in a given time before the war and the number laid now the difference is appalling. I appeal to working men to help their own unhoused fellow-workman. I think I am entitled to do that. If the output is to be restricted the cost per house will not bo £700. There is a doubt whether it will ba even £1000. What does that mean ? It means that there will be a permanent charge upon the working classes. I appeal to my hon. friends on the Labour benches to make a special appeal to the building trade to relax any regulation in regard to restriction of output in order to enable us to build cheaply and to build quickly. Here is the State- coming to the rescue, but. it really cannot subsidise regulations which are in themselves monstrously unjust, ■ which are fatal to the industry of the country, and which will create a, permanent charge on our industrial position. Every additional charge, whethei the result of greedy employership or neglectful employeeship, becomes a permanent burden on the people. As Lord Robert Cecil pointed out, the subsidy itself comes eventually out of the pocket of the workers. In fairness it should be added that Mr. Clynes, one of the ablest of British Labour leaders, interjected in Mr. Lloy(J George's speech a statement- that the trade unions were inquiring into the charges of limitation of output in. the building trade. Commenting thereon, the London Daily Telegraph hopes that the results of the inquiry will be made known as early as possible. " But," adds the Telegraph,- "the truth of the general statement is not in doubt, and. complaints are bitter and universal. The 'question is one which directly concerns all the other trade unions, foi the great majority of the houses required are needed by workmen to live in, and they can render no better service than by bringing the force of a strong public opinion to beat' upon the members of the building trades." What is needed is not only that the building trade employees should work their best, but that they should relax their union restrictions in order to admit unskilled or partly-skilled labour that is now barred. "We must," says tho Prim« Minister, " get men into the building trads who in a very short time

will be able to acquire the necessary sKill to do certain work.',' Unless the employees are sufficiently public-spirited to adapt their attitude to the common interest, private enterprise and public employership are equally helpless, whether in the building trade or in the mines. And it is a knowledge of these things, and a failure ■ to discover any cure in Government management, that cause a practical politician like Mr. Lloyd' George to refuse to be carried off his feet by the wave of_ "nationalisation," which, like every other wave, must have its back-wash.