'Masters Admonition Signed By Whole Staff

Northern Advocate, 22 January 1947, Page 5

'Masters Admonition Signed By Whole Staff

ECONOMIC REVIEW

(Special, 10 a.m.)

LONDON, January 21

THE current colloquialism: “What! No plan?” seems to be the general reaction of British newspapers to the Government’s statement on economic considerations affecting relations between employers and workers. • It is left to The Times to remark that, though the statement falls short of being a complete diagnosis, let alone a comprehensive indication of policy, this was not its purpose.

The full disclosure of the Government’s appreciation of the present outlook and of its intentions must await the White Paper due to be published in February. The almost universal comment is that the statement largely reiterates what is already known—that Britain’s economic position is grave and that everyone must work harder. This, while it may be unpalatable, is not news.

The Times also remarks that it would add force to the appeals for greater efforts. It was felt that sure means were not envisaged for overcoming or circumnavigating decisive obstacles.

“For the present limited purpose it might have been helpful to furnish answers to some of the more puzzling and disturbing queries that now present themselves,” says The Times. Pointing that out the statement says it would obviously be quite impossible to spare over 500,000 workers from the Home production market to provide a 75 per cent increase in the volume of exports, The Times says the statement does not show how productivity at present compares with that before the war.

The Manchester Guardian also re* grots that the statement gives no indication of policy, but adds: “This may only be the first shot in a more energetic effort to spread knowledge ol the facts among the .people so that they may be prepared to accept new policies when the time for decision comes.”

The Financial Times comments that the statement is “a headmaster’s admonition signed by all the staff. "It confines itself to exegesis and exhortation, and has little in it that is new.”

It asks: How rapidly must production be increased to avoid the diversion of workers to export industries and what will happen if credits from overseas threaten to run out before the required increase in productivity has been secured?

It asks whether omnibus reviews like this statement serve anything like the purpose they might do if the Government itself would give a lead. The Guardian suggests it might be better to tackle the problems seriatim, find out their essential evolutionary sequencs, and concentrate on first things first. First, it adds, comes coal, then reequipment.