The Prime Minister on Unionist Policy
THERE will be general relief, except among keen politicians in the Opposition camps, at the Prime Minister's prompt and definite repudiation of the Protec- tionist manoeuvres in which many Unionist members and several Ministers have been all too actively engaged. His letter of August 3rd to the Unionist Chief Whip puts it on record that Mr. Baldwin's Ministry " are pledged, and shall continue to be pledged, not to introduce Pro- tection," and " not to impose any taxes on food." It would be difficult to choose plainer terms than these. We may safely infer that Mr. Baldwin, with the support of Mr. Churchill, has reasserted his authority in the Cabinet and imposed a more or less discreet silence on those ardent spirits who, like Sir William Joynson-Hicks, evidently wish to unfurl once again the banner of Tariff Reform and fight the General Election on that issue. The fiscal policy of the Government is to remain unchanged. Certain details in the procedure for dealing with petitions for safeguarding this or that industry may perhaps be simplified. Mr. Baldwin's statement that " no manu- facturing industry will be barred from presenting its case before the appointed tribunal " seems to imply that the technical difficulties which prevented the case of the iron and steel industries from being heard will be removed. But beyond Safeguarding Mr. Baldwin absolutely declines to go, and his Protectionist followers must accept his decision or wreck their party by another split. The deplorable results of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's fiscal adventure between 1903 and 1906 are, however, so patent to anyone who looks back twenty years that we do not expect any prominent Unionist to repeat that experiment now.
Even if it were reasonable to suppose that by adopting a general tariff we should very soon find employment for all the workmen now eating out their hearts in idleness— and that, we firmly believe, is a delusion—the Protec- tionist demand at this time implies a complete lack of faith in the Government's alternative policy, which aims at encouraging industry by reducing its burden of local taxation. The Cabinet has deliberately adopted a bold scheme for recasting our whole rating system. To finance it, Mr. Churchill imposed his new petrol tax in this year's Budget. To prepare the way for it, Mr. Neville Chamberlain brought in and carried his Rating Valuation Act, which provides that farm land shall be free from local rates and that productive industries shall be relieved of three-fourths of their rates, while railways are to be relieved in respect of such parts of their under- takings as are concerned with the transport of heavy material, such as coal, iron ore, steel and the like. The principal measure of the coming session is to be a Local Government Reform Bill, which has been fully described in a White Paper. It will enlarge the rating areas, confer larger powers on the County Councils, especially by transferring to them the administration of the Poor Law and the upkeep of all roads, and readjust the financial relations between the Councils and the Treasury. The purpose of all these complex and ambitious measures is to make local government more efficient and less costly, and, by derating productive industries, to assist them to reduce their output costs and thus to meet foreign com- petition whether here or overseas. It is hoped, and not without reason, that our industries, thus relieved of a great part of the stupendous load of rates, will rapidly recover their old vigour and find work for many more people than they can now employ. The reform of our archaic rating system was overdue in tiny case, and there is much to be said for the redistribution of the functions of local govern- ment, and the enlargement of the powers of the county, especially in the rural districts. But the main object of the scheme is to promote employment, and reduce the: terribly large army of out-of-work men and women who are a source of misery to themselves and to their friends and neighbours. Surely every supporter of the Government is in honour bound to help, rather thatC to hinder, a policy so well considered and so beneficent as this.
If the Protectionist method of coping with unemploy- ment were the only one available, we could understand the impatience of those Unionist members who have been pressing for a rapid extension of the tariff, and especially for duties on imported steel. But now that the Prime Minister and his colleagues have adopted an alternative method, and are half-way towards the com- pletion of the necessary legislative measures, it is surpris.; ing that any attempt should be made to hark back to the other policy, with all its obvious disadvantages and positive dangers. A dispassionate observer would say that, if Mr. Baldwin has not yet convinced his own followers of the wisdom and soundness of his great scheme of derating, he may find it very difficult to con- vince the country that the drastic reforms foreshadowed are necessary and desirable. To that extent the Protec- tionist agitation of the last few weeks has done harm to the Government and weakened the prestige which they gained during the session. The public have now to be convinced anew that the Government's policy is worth trying, even if it involves the abolition of the Boards of Poor Law Guardians, the diminution of the powers and responsibilities of the smaller local bodies, and much controversy between those industries which are to be derated and those which are not. It would be well, if those Unionists who have a hankering after Tariff Reform would realize the position, and put aside such fiscal fancies and concentrate on the defence of the official policy of their party. No man can ride two horses at once, and Unionists who seek to preach Tariff Reform and Rating Reform simultaneously will have a rude awakening when the General Election comes.
We need not repeat our views of the futility of Protec- tion as a permanent cure for unemployment in Great Britain, nor our reasons for believing that this highly.
industrialized country would never accept the taxes on food which must be an inseparable part of a Protective system. Here we desire only to emphasize the fact that the Government has devised an alternative method of coping with unemployment, and that in the public interest its policy deserves a fair trial. The derating programme will involve disadvantages and difficulties, but it promises counterbalancing benefits of a lasting kind in our local administration, and it will unquestionably help every manufacturer, large or small, successful or unlucky, in the competition for markets. The Government policy has so far elicited very little serious criticism. Even Mr. Lloyd George has found it difficult to do more than poke fun at the somewhat complex White Paper. The public are awaiting a fuller exposition of the details, and of the reasons why derating should help to lessen unemployment and increase prosperity. All Unionist politicians should address themselves to the task whole-heartedly. Those who at this juncture prefer to trifle with the old and discredited remedy of Protection are flying in the face of Providence. They can only injure themselves and ruin their party's chance of retaining power.
Previous page
