The Hokitika Guardian FRIDAY OCTOBER 14th, 1921. NATIONALISATION.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 October 1921, Page 2

The Hokitika Guardian FRIDAY OCTOBER 14th, 1921. NATIONALISATION.

'l’iik ceuesi* i)l' “The IVoblein of Nnionalisn.tion,” by Viscount Haldane, is and ' s s 0 reviewed in an Australian paper. Early in 19111 there was a. throat of a notional miners’ strike, and tin* llritisli Government appointed a Royal Commission under Justice Sankey to examine the issues, to investigate the conditions of the industry generally, and to make recommendations with regard to the dispute. The nationalisation of the mines was in the forefront of the miners’ demands. llut their representative* realised that it would not bo enough for them to demonstrate the virtues of nationalisation aa a theory. If the policy were adopted it woidd involve the

1 employment of an army of civil servants. Therefore, to induce the eolilI mission to report in favour of their proposals they would have to show not merely that nationalisation was desirable, but that the necessary personnel was available, or could be recruited, without much difficulty. To that end they invited an expression of opinion from Viscount Haldane, whom an experience of six years in the War Office hod <| mil died to speak with authority on the subject of Government organisation. This hook is substantially the evidence he gave before the commission. Viscount Haldane does not discuss the pros and cons of nationalisation as such: that is entirely foreign to his purpose, which is simply to consider the (|iicstioii of personnel. He believes that an adequate and capable staff officer could easily he found. Tim war has loft many trained administrators whose capacity could with advantage he utilised in the public services. He refers to the stock criticism that the servant- of the State is oil tho whole less efficient than the private employee. Rut is that generalisation valid he asks. It is not- as regards two very important services. In the army and navv men display the utmost loyalty energy and competence for a ridieti.'otisly small reward. Is there any reason why tlie same tradition should not he developed in the Civil Service:-' Why the public spirit and devotion to duty of the martial services should not he at the disposal of the nation for the tasks of peace? Viscount Haldane argues his case very plausibly ; hut is the analogy quite sound? The army and the navy have certain attractions which tho more prosaic services do not- possess. Tliot'o ie onrfnin irlom/ilir ti Kill if. f.iiPlll •

they offer social position and opportunities for movement which compen sate for the comparatively meagre emoluments. However, Viscount ilnldnne is convinced thajt there exists in Britain to-dav an ample reservoir of able men who are “just as keen to servo the State as they are to serve a private employer,’’ and consequently the suggested difficulty of obtaining personnel need not enter into the question of nationalisation. In an introduction Mr 1L IL Tawticy and Mr 11. S. T.eski insist that it lias become obvious that the present system of control of the coal and railway industries in Britain has failed. The worker is no longer content to work for the prolit of private individuals. Increased wages and reduced wages have not been able to maintain his interest as has been shown by the repeated strikes and the falling-off in output. But nationalisation, in itself, is no remedy for that state of affairs. As we know in A us* tr:ilin, strikes and diminished production are common in Government instrumentalities, where there is no question ef private profit—or, indeed, no question of any profit at all. Mr Tawney and Mr La ski. however, do not advocate tthe transfer of these industries to tho control of a Government department. The “nationalisation” they propose is more flexible, less bureaucratic. and makes the workers an integral part, hut only a part, of the government, of the industry.