COMPROMISE SEEN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27057, 16 April 1949, Page 7

COMPROMISE SEEN

ELECTION PROPOSALS LABOUR’S DESIRE FOR CONSOLIDATION ACHIEVEMENTS IN BRITAIN Rec. 8 p.m. LONDON, Apl. 13. All newspaper comment, which does not follow strictly political lines, finds the Labour Party’s election proposals to be a compromise between the desire for consolidattoin* of Labour's achievements since 1945 and the desire to find something new as a means of appealing to the electors. The Manchester Guardian remarks that while from the point of view of a complete doctrinaire of Socialism the new nationalisation proposals are “derisory,” this moderation should appeal to all but dogmatic Socialists. First Four Years “U Is a sign,” says the paper, “that the Government has learned responsibility, that it is putting the needs of national recovery before dogma, and that it has some sneaking doubts (though it would hardly dare to admit them in a party document) that the first four years of socialisation have not gone very well." Discussing the specific proposals for nationalisation, the paper says tnat water supply is a public service, like gas and electricity, and is already mostly in municipal hands, so that State ownership will make little or no difference.

Industrial assurance is v in a sense, a contributory social service, the question of whose nationalisation is more a question of expediency than that of principle. Public ownership of minor minerals is an extension of an accepted principle. State control of meat wholesaling would only confirm the Ministry of Food in its present powers. The only serious new invasions of private enterprise are the proposals to take over sugar and cement. “In neither of these have any effective arguments been produced, and there Is not the slightest reason to suppose that State management would be a scrap more efficient than private.” savs the Guardian

The Times says that, discounting the phrases hallowed by Socialist tradition, a compromise can be read between the lines on every page of the election proposals. “Altogtther,” continues the paper, “ this preliminary statement of policy reflects both the somewhat confused frame of mind of the party and the perplexities of the country’s internal and external economic situation. “The dispassionate elector next year Is likely to find it harder than ever to choose between the contestants simply by reading their programmes. If he does, after all, decide to vote Labour out of office, he may well do so simply because of the old Labour instinct which played its part four years ago—to give the other side a turn.”

Comment Restrained

Comment in business circles in the city was restrained, but in general stressed the fact that more nationalisation will further restrict the field for private investment and enterprise. Hints that the chemical manufacturing industry and shipbuilding may also be nationalised at a later date were considered likely to have a very unsettling effect upon both industries. Opposition to the nationalisation of industrial assurance and of cement manufacturing was pronounced. The director of one of the leading cement companies pointed out that it had not been thought necessary to ask the present Monopolies Commission to investigate the industry, that British cement makers had done all that had been asked of them by the Government in meeting the export drive and the Home market, and that cementmaking was the only British heavy industry in which the output per man was higher in Britain than in rfthe United States. The following statement was issued on behalf of the industrial life assurances offices:—“We are opposed to nationalisation in any form. We are convinced that nationalisation will not ensure cheaper or more efficient service for policyholders, that it will not benefit our employees, and that it will be adverse to the economic interest of the nation.”

The Financial Times says the implementation of the Labour Party’s proposals for the nationalisation of industrial life assurance companies and societies would mean much more than the transfer of policies to Government control. It would transfer to the Government a large stake in industry and in property, generally. An examination of the latest available balance sheets of the principal offices threatened by. the, programme show that 10 of them have £285,000,000 invested in industrial enterprises. In addition, their property holdings total £53,000.000. and over £43,000,000 of their invested funds is represented by mortgages of various kinds. Their total investments, apart from mortgages and loans, exceed £975,000,000. Of these, British Government securities and British Government guaranteed stocks account for £564,000.000 Huge Investments Five companies only are known to the Stock Exchange, but lour of them —the Prudential, the Pearl, the Britannic, and the London and Manchester—hold between them more than £700,000,000 of investments, and have some £213,000,000 invested in industrial securities. Their property holdings amount to £43,000.000, and mortgages and loans total £17.000,000 and £29,000,000 respectively. Out of 30 leading industrial companies whose shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange. the Prudential has holdings in 22 and the Pearl in 12. Nationalisation of either concern would make the Government a part owner of businesses in every industry. An official of the £5.000,000 British Sugar Corporation said that the Government already controlled sugar manufacturers' profits by price control.

Representatives of private meat trading companies expressed the greatest concern at the news that tue lovernment proposed to nationalise meat wholesaling. “This is tragic,” said the senior official of one company. “ Nothing could be worse than the present Government arrangements. The existing meat situation has been brought about by the Government intervention in the trade. The sensible thing to do would be for the Ministry of Food to hand over to private traders.” Trade Union Reaction

The first reactions in trade union quarters on Labour’s new nationalisation proposals have been far from unanimous, says Reuter's. In some cases the programme does not go so far with nationalisation as some of the unions desired, and in at least one case—insurance —it goes further than the unions contemplated. How far the dissidents have been able to win support for more radical measures than those now proposed will be shown at the annual conference of the Labour Party at Whitsun and the annual Trades Union Congress in September. The National Amalgamated Union of Insurance Workers and the employees of the Co-operative Insurance Society —between them numbering 11,000are on record as favouring nationalisation. , Trade union organised workers in the British chemical Industry are fairly equally divided in their attitude to nationalisation.

The Federation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions wants nationalisation, not only of shipbuilding, but i-f all marine industries. The nationalisation of sugar manufacture and refining, of cement, and of water undertakings appears to have solid trade union support.