Growing Crisis Of Under- Production

Northern Advocate, 7 November 1946, Page 5

Growing Crisis Of Under- Production

BRITAIN MUST OVERCOME

(Received 10 a.m.)

(By A. Mitchell)

LONDON, November 6,

THE call by the British Government for increased production has been underlined by a warning of trade difficulties and the necessity for permanent peacetime conscription.

The House of Commons has been told that Britain’s position is “extremely serious’’ and that, unless there is a concerted effort to increase production per man hours, the country’s standard of living would be affected.

In private talks with the Labour Party and TUC leaders, Mr Attlee has emphasised this urgent need and also given reasons for conscription.

The gravity of both these statements is designed to bring home to the nation the necessity of overcoming what Js described as “the growing crisis of under-production,” which, it is felt in some quarters, is not properly appreciated by the people as a whole.

Both emphasise the need for the Labour Party to explain to their followers that unless there is full effort there can be no fulfilment of the Government’s promises of better social conditions, and also for the TUC leaders to abolish restrictive practices established in the days when manpower exceeded the absorbent capacity of industry. “BITTER PILL” While the production drive is supported by both organisations, the decision to maintain conscription is difficult for them to accept. The Labour Party has a traditional dislike for compulsory service and it is described as a bitter pill for them to swallow. TUC leaders are said to have received Mr Attlee’s statement “coldly.” Some of them believe that conscription would be unnecessary if the Government's foreign policy was changed, while others see their hopes for a 40hour w'eek fading. On this latter point Mr Attlee is understood to have taken the line that the Government agrees in principle with a 40-hour week, .provided there is more intensive production and output. Mr Attlee's private statements were supported in the House of Commons by Mr J. W. Belcher and Professor Marquand, who took a rather different line from Mr Morrison’s recent* recapitulations of progress in tbe past year.

Mr Belcher, in calling for increased production both for home and overseas export, said that apart from a comparatively small number in the development areas, there were no further resources’ of manpower that could be enlisted c-nce demobilisation was complete. -

The only way out, he said, was to increase output per man year and make full use of manpower.

TODAY’S DANGER

The danger today is not mass unemployment, but lowering of the standard of living due to the slow advance o* the productivity of labour,” he added Referring to “the extreme seriousness of our position,” Mr Marquand said that since Britain secured the loan from America its money value had dropped which was a serious factor.

Discussing the danger of British industry suffering from a world depression, he continued:

“What we might have to anticipate in the near future might be something like the slump we had in 1921. “I firmly believe that British economy—controlled as it is at the moment— could resist the effects of a depression such as we had in 1921. “I do believe our whole system of economic planning and control is sufficient, and we must look forward much later to a world depression of the type we had in 1929. “I cannot see it occurring for some years to come, in view of the acute shortage of goods all over the world. “In planning for the dangers of a world depression upon a large scale, we have, I think, still a little breathing space in which to make our plans.” ' HARD PERIOD AHEAD The immediate period ahead will be difficult for both the Labour Party and the TUC. Neither wishes to embarrass the Government but both have to face up to accepting facts which neither liked.

It is reported that there was frank Gpeaking at both Mr Attlee’s meetings, and fairly sharp divisions, particularly regarding conscription. One outcome may be an increased note of criticism of Mr Bevin’s foreign policy.

Several members of the. TUC feel that conscription, which will mean about 1,000,000 fewer workers for industry, may make increased production “extremely difficult, if not impossible.” They argue that a change in foreign policy would result in fewer men being required for defence services. But there is also no doubt that conscription has a direct effect on their hopes for a 40-hour week.

Since the TUC is wedded to this policy it will also provide further ground for watchfulness"*of Mr Beviri.

Whatever the various reactions, however, the Labour Government has plainly stated Britain’s' Trade position and the need for all the forces of labour to pull together.