The Daily News TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1930. THE ROOT PROBLEM.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 August 1930, Page 8

The Daily News TUESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1930. THE ROOT PROBLEM.

In the course o£ Mr. Winston Churchill’s recent Romanes Lecture at Oxford he dwelt at some length upon the vision of an economic sub-Parlianient, which would debate, in a detached atmosphere, tlie great problems ol finance and trade. He claimed that before the war the issues fought out in Parliament were political and social, and that the life of the nation proceeded underneath the agitated froth; but that since the war the issues had been economic, the nation accordingly being interested in economics more than in politics. Possibly to a certain extent that contention is justified, but none the less does party politics monopolise a considerable amount of attention.' Evidently Mr. Churchill fully recognised that a homily on economics when delivered at such a university as Oxford should be treated on very different lines from those usually adopted in a present-day Parliament, hence it is not surprising ho made the assertion that the nation has got in the 11 main the political system it wants. Theoretically that claim is true when applied to a democratic country, provided the party in power faithfully and fully represents the will of the people. Conversely, however, such is not the ease'when a minority Government rules. But when Mr. Churchill assumed that the British nation, had what it wanted politically he added: “What it now asks for is move money, better times, regular employment, expanding comfort and material prosperity,” and the reason he gave for such requests was that the nation felt it was not having its share in tile development of the modern world, and was losing its relative position. The same might be said by almost every nation in the world. Evidently Mr. Churchill was enjoying the opportunity to indulge in the pastime of setting up skittles for the pleasure of scattering them. It was quite eharacteristis of that mercurial politician to remark that in the present period the House of Commons was engaged in digesting and assimilating a large new party founded in theory, at any rate, upon the basis of manual labour—a very heavy meal necessitating the process of deglutition taking time. The House, he added, tames, calms, instructs, reconciles and rallies to the fundamental institutions of the State all sorts and conditions of men—and even women. He was not far from the mark when he summed up the political situation thus: “In dealing with practical politics the House of Commons has no rival, but it is otherwise with economic problems.” Judged by the test of what is going on now, Mr. Churchill claimed that the root problem of modern world economics was the strange discordance between the consuming and producing power. Anyone having more than a passing acquaintance with the basic principles of economics must be well aware that economic problems, unlike political issues, cannot be solved by any expression, however vehement, of the national will, but only by taking the right action. The people wish for more prosperity. How to get it? That is the grim question, and neither the electors nor their representatives in Parliament have so far proved competent to provide a practical solution.- Under these circumstances Mr. Churchill claims that if new light is to be thrown upon this grave and clamant subject it must in the first instance undergo examination by a non-political body, 'free altogether from party exigencies and composed of persons possessing special qualifications in economic matters. He does not see why the political Parliament should not choose, in proportion to its political groupings, a subordinate economic Parliament of, say, one-fifth of its members, and composed of persons of high technical and business qualifications. The constitution of such a body should present no insuperable difficulty, but if it is to accord with the political grouping in the House of Commons how could it be free from political bias? That phase of the question, however, sinks into insignificance when compared with the task of inducing the people in general either to completely digest the true principles of economics or to bow without question to the dictates of professional economic experts. There has never been a time in the history of tho Motherland when party politics have exercised such intense interest- or such keen controversy. It would be fai* too much to expect these political warriors to lay down their party shibboleths and be guided by the cold logic of classical doctrines of economics. Mi*. Churchill is too much of a political campaigner to expect such an upheaval to take place, and it would almost seem as if he had tongue in cheek when, propounding his

vision of an economic sub-Parlia-ment. The root problem is all he claims for it, but the solution appears as far off as when it was first promulgated.