SOCIAL REFORM IN BRITAIN

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 104, 27 January 1943, Page 5

SOCIAL REFORM IN BRITAIN

Speculation On Future TASK OF REGAINING EXPORT TRADE

(By Telegraph.—Press Assn—Copyright.)

(Special Correspondent.) (Received January 26, 7 p.m.) LONDON, January 25.

This is an interesting time to live in England —Britain has undergone a change in thought in many directions. Speaking generally, the broad mass of the working people is concerned about the future after the war. “Today,” observes “The Times,” “large numbers serving In the armed forces or toiling in war factories are preoccupied by a gnawing fear of the return of mass unemployment after the war.”

Among several reasons why the Beveridge Plan is so widely welcomed is that one of bis three assumptions on which social security is based is “the maintenance of employment, that is to say, tlie avoidance of mass unemployment.” Sir William Beveridge’s comments on Ibis point provide hope and food for thought for hungry minds. But the working men have not got all tlie worry regarding the future. It is equally shared by industrialists, business men and farmers. It is obvious to all Unit for Britain to remain prosperous she must, regain the markets lost in wartime and re-establish her export trade. The question is how? To what extent shall the Government and private enterprise participate? Many of Britain's business leaders have delivered themselves of weighty opinion—the Federation of British Industries, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, and the London Chamber of Commerce. None of their views have been universally applauded. A typical criticism is the "Manchester Guardian’s”: “So far as one can pierce the verbiage their eyes do not see beyond tlie remedies of possible public works, lower taxes and mysterious methods for 'equating consumption with production,’ usually through some vague form of currency manipulation. But all demand that ‘industry’—business organized _ into tight monopolistic trade associations • should be brought, in by the Government to see that tlie Government shall not interfere too much.”

Following hard on the heels of these reports comes a paper, “The Problem of Unemployment,” issued by Lever Brothers, Unilever, Limited. It was immediately warmly greeted as an important and useful contribution. “Tlie Economist” states, "It is outstanding because it recognizes in principle the argument that full employment does not mean simply the permanent maintenance of employment in particular industrial associations." Another comment is, “It plumps squarely for maximum multi-lateral trade through co-operation in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter.”

There is varied comment regarding the place of private and Slate enterprise.

"The Tinies” sums up views that are widely held. “Broadly speaking,” it says, "the point at which State enterprise must step in to supplement the control of private enterprise is the point at which private enterprise becomes enmeshed in policies which in fact, though not always in name or intention, are restrictive.” This “post-war thinking” is one of many reasons which promise to make the present session of Parliament so interesting and important.