BRITAIN'S NEW POLITICAL PARTY

New Zealand Listener, Volume 10, Issue 253, 28 April 1944, Page 16

BRITAIN'S NEW POLITICAL PARTY

Sir Richard Acland Explains Common Wealth

'TCXPLAINING his decision to cease making large-scale contributions to finance the Common Wealth Party, of which he is the founder, Sir Richard Acland, M.P., told the "Daily Mail’’ recently: "I have only £8,000 capital to live on for the next six years, When that is gone, I will have no more money.’ He added that a company director, Alan Good, and himself, had contributed £17,000 out of a £20,000 party fund. "Paradoxically, the Common Wealth Party has been too successful, involving heavy expenses," he_ said. "Unless the party’s 10,000 or 15,000 members pay up, the party faces financial disaster."’--Cable message. HIS was but one of several references in our newspapers in recent months to Sir Richard Acland’s Common Wealth Party in Great Britain (often misspelt " Commonwealth"). At the same time, reviews have appeared in English newspapers of Sir Richard’s book How It Can Be Done, in which he details fully his beliefs, remedies, and general political programme. He insists that the plans he suggests are his own, but that the first six chapters of his book would be accepted by the members of the Common Wealth organisation-the remaining chapters are open to dis- © cussion. Whether the Common Wealth Party will rival the big political parties has yet to be proved, but the newspapers have already given lists of constituencies which the Common Wealth Party expects. to contest. Many of our readers, whatever their political colour,

will therefore be interested in Sir Richard Acland’s scheme of Public Control of Private Ownership, which is the main plank of his platform. % * * ONE of the main criticisms of the Common Wealth programme takes the form of suggesting that if public control of private ownership is adopted, money in the savings banks, Defence Bonds, etc., will sooner or later be taken. Sir Richard writes: ~~ ae

"We so often hear talk about ‘our all being capitalists now.’ In a_ certain sense a great many of us are. There are statistics showing that 10 per cent of all workers (in Britain) work in businesses employing less than 10 workers each. We could not calculate from these statistics how many separately-owned businesses there are unless we knew the average number of workers in these small businesses. But obviously there must be quite a large number. "Much more numerous are the people who, while they work for wages, also own a little bit of something — post office savings, Defence Bonds, the house next door, one or two shares in this and that. There are millions of these people. But the important thing about all these millions of little ‘owners’ is that when they are all added together, their property does not amount to anything very much, "The Rich" and "The Poor" "The facts about us are that 94 per cent of us put together own less than 14 per cent of all the property of the country, while six per cent of us own more than 86 per cent of the property. Or, to put the same thing another way, 37% million people own one-seventh of the country, while two and a-half million own the remaining six-sevenths. "For most of the 371 million, earning wages is the way of life; while owning property is for some of them something which brings in a little bit extra (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) per week or per year. For some of the two and a-half million, owning property is the way of life; and.doing some sort of job is more or less incidental. "For, just as in the community as a whole, so also within the favoured two and a-half million we find ‘the rich’ and e‘the poor,’ Probably the overwhelming majority of these two and a-half million are ‘just shareholders,’ who do not really use their property so as to exercise any control at all over our great industries. It is only a tiny minority of the very richest of the rich who actually direct the major policies of our big industries through the exercise of their property tights." The Problem of Compensation Later in the book Sir Richard deals with the problem of compensation to private owners, whose property would come under public control. This compensation would not be given on principle, but as a matter of practice. The author says: "I believe, however, that the proposals I make may seem _ broadly reasonable to our people as a whole. If I am wrong, I would gladly accept democratic correction either upwards or downwards. "On the first £50 of present net income from property a man _ should receive 100 per cent. "On the next £150, 75 per cent. "On the next £200, 50 per cent. "On the next 400 25 per cent. "On the next £6,375, 10 per cent. On anything further, nil, "This would give a top compensation limit of £1,000 a year, which would then be free of all income tax. Let us consider how it would affect the man who to-day receives £600 a year from property-after paying income tax. On his first £50 he would receive 100 per cent, or £50; on his next £150 he would receive 75 per cent, or £112/10; on his next £200 he would receive 50 per cent, or £100, on his last £200 he would receive 25 per cent or £50. So altogether, instead of the net £600 which he receives to-day, he would receive a net of £312/10. Too High Or Too Low? "It is my own private opinion that these figures are much too high," continues Sir Richard, "Some owners may think they are too low. But I should be prepared to face the man who receives his net income £600 from property to-day, and who will receive a net £312/10, Jif the above scales prove generally acceptable, "I should ask him how much we should pay to a man who has lost his eyes in the war. If he said that we should pay less than £4 a week, I could not continue the conversation, But. if he agreed to £4 a week for a man who had lost his eyes, I would ask him whether, in comparison, £6 a week is too little for a man who has lost his property. If he said it was, I would refer the matter to the fair-minded British people. .. ." "We shall have to consider the owner. who has inescapable commitments. A man receiving £600 a year from property may be paying £200 allowance or pension to someone, or may have children in their last years at school costing £300 a year. We should need to establish tribunals to consider these cases, and, where reasonable, to take ever the commitments in whole or in a 40. O