DEMAND FOR ECONOMIC PLAN

Chronicle (Levin), 23 January 1947, Page 6

DEMAND FOR ECONOMIC PLAN

(Special Correspondent.)

COMMENT ON BRITISH POSITION

LONDOX, Jan. 21. The currenb- colloquiaiism, " Wot! No plans?" seems to be the general reaetion of the British newspapers to the Government's statement on the economic considerations affecting rela* tions between employers and workers. It was left to the Times to remark tliat, though the statement falls short of being a complete diagnosis, let alone a eomprehensive indieation of policy, this was not its purpose. A full disclosure of the Governinent 's appreciation of the present outloolc and of their intentions must await the White Paper due to be published in February. The almost universal eomment is that the statement largely rciterates what is already known— that Britain's economie xrosition is so grave that everyone must work harder, which, while it may be unpalatable, is not news. ' ' For the present liinitcd purpose, it might have been helpful to furnisli answers to soine of the more puzzling and disturbing queries that now present themselvcs, " says the Times. Pointing out that the statement says that it would obviously be quite impossible to spare over 500,000 workers from the home production marlcet to provide a been seeured? The Times also remarks that it would aud foree to the appeals for great er efforts if it were fclt that sure nieans were now envisaged for overeoming or circumnavigatihg the' deeisive obstacles. The 0 iManchester Guardian also regrets that the statement gives 110 indieation of policy, but adds: "This may be only tluy first shot in a more energetie effort to spread knowledge of the facts among the people, so that they may be perparcd to accept new policies when the timo for decision comes.j' The Financial Times eomments "that the statement is "a headmaster 's admonition signal by all tlie staft". It eonfines itself to exegesis and exhortation and has little in it that is new". It asks whether oinnibus reviews like 75 per eent. inerease in tlie volunie oi' exports, the Times says that the statement does not show how produe tivity at present coniparcs with that before the war. It asks how rapidly must it be inereased to avoid the diversion of workers to export indus tries, and what will happen if credits overseas tlireaten to run out before tlm required inerease in prodivtivit v has this statement' serve anything liko the ]>urpose they might do if tlffi Government itself would give a lead. It also suggests that it might be better to taelcle the problems scriatim, lind out their essential evolutionary seijuence. and coneentrate on first_ tliings first. First, it adds, eomes eoal, and then re-equipment.