Idle Men and Idle Money
THE unemployment demonstration in Hyde Park on Sunday, one of the most remarkable efforts of the kind ever organized, was designed to bring the unem- ployment issue forcibly before the nation on the eve of the Assembly of Parliament, and any lesson it may have failed to impress the unemployment figures, published on the very day Parliament opened, will almost brutally drive home. The increase in the unemployed total—which now stands at over 2,900,000—as between December 19th and January 23rd was close on 178,000. The rise was not unexpected ; we pointed out a month ago that unem- ployment usually reaches its peak in February ; but the unprecedented total of 3,000,000 is already within 100,000 of being realized, and it may yet be surpassed. No Government, not even a National Government, that sits down complacently before those appalling statistics can escape the merciless condemnation of its own supporters. It may be true that the only effective way to reduce unemployment in the long run is to stimulate the ordinary flow of trade, and that improvised relief works are so enor- mously costly that the burden which they lay on the tax- payer far transcends the volume of unemployment they affect. But is the Government simply to sit and wait for trade to recover? Is there nothing but the reduced dole to offer the three million workless ? Little enough has been offered them so far at any rate. The economy gospel has carried the day. Local authorities have been urged not to spend. Important projects'of great public utility, notably new arterial or by-pass roads, have actually been left half-finished (witness the letter from two Oxford Heads of Houses regarding a by-pass to relieve Oxford, in The Times on Tuesday).
The economy doctrine has been carried to intolerable lengths, and it is satisfactory to find the leading joint- stock bankers, notably Mr. Rupert Beckett of the Westminster, expressing themselves firmly, if with the bankers' customary caution, on that. " There were," said Mr. Beckett last week at his bank's annual meeting, "vast numbers of men unemployed in all industrial countries and a great accumulation of money lying idle. The problem was to marry the two." That observation is not original, and to it may be added that the prices of most materials needed for works of capital reconstruc- tion are inordinately low. Never was there a moment more opportune for undertaking work that in the public interest needs to be undertaken. Never for years past has it been possible to construct bridges or roads or houses or public halls or schools so cheaply as to-day. There is no question of building recklessly wherever the chance offers. The prophets of economy are right so far. It is obviously a case for selection, and the fact that stares Government and Opposition and every detached person in the face is that while bridges and halls and some roads can very well wait, the case for an immense national effort in the field of housing is clamant. In the slums of our great cities alone not fewer than half a million dwellings need to be demolished and their occupants rehoused. The existence of idle men and idle money and the prevalence of low prices for materials ought to go far to solve that problem, but it will, in fact, never be solved without action by the Government. The official policy at the moment is to trust to the speculative builder, with the Building Societies to finance him. No one will dismiss that expedient as valueless till it has been well tested, but it is certain that it can touch only the fringe of the need. The housing reformer would put houses where they are wanted, and with scientific town-planning ever before his eyes. The private builder would put them where they will pay him —where, in particular, land is reasonably cheap, as it never is in a crowded slum-area. It is highly doubtful, moreover, whether he will build houses for the lowest- paid worker at all.
That is the case for a concerted assault on the slum, such a case as was made at the conference over which Sir Austen Chamberlain presided last week. There are various forms which such a campaign might take, and there is no need to canvass them in detail here. The suggestion of a National Housing Corporation, on a public utility society basis, is well worth exploring, and it is satisfactory that Sir Hilton Young intends to explore it. Finance would be the difficulty, and it is doubtful whether such a society could prosper without financial support from the Government. Is there any reason why that support should not be forthcoming, whether for this or some other approved enterprise ? This is a national emergency in more senses than one. There is a financial emergency, it is true. But the state of employment constitutes a national emergency in itself, and so does the state of the slums, apathetic though we may be regarding conditions whose existence we have suffered so long. There can be no serious question of financing capital expenditure like housing out of revenue, but there is every reason why the idea of a National Housing Loan, with capital and interest guaranteed by the Government, should be pressed on the Cabinet's consideration. If the proceeds of the loan were devoted solely to slum reconstruction the methods employed in the Government's present Bill could still be pursued elsewhere. Private enterprise will undoubtedly supply a certain need by building on the outskirts of towns and cities where transport facilities are adequate.
The secondary effects of a stimulus to the building industry would be enormous, not only in making new work for a large number of subsidiary industries, but in creating a demand whereby the small shopkeeper, and the merchant and manufacturer behind him, would imme- diately profit. To build on borrowed money is, of course, to throw a certain burden forward on to another genera- tion, but there are moments when that is perfectly legiti- mate and purposes for which it is definitely laudable. Burdens incurred in hard times can be liquidated in easier times. The Government is rightly encouraging the pri- vate householder to mortgage the future on a small scale by borrowing from Building Societies for repairs and decorations. Is it less reasonable for the community to do the same when vital human necessities are involved than for the individual concerned only with amenities ? Another aspect of the question, the relief to the Govern- ment in reduction of dole-payments, is immediately rele- vant, whether or not it should prove practicable (which has not yet been convincingly demonstrated) actually to subsidize building operations by the amount saved in unemployment benefit. The best that can be said of the Government's attitude towards unemployment so far is that it has been conspicuously unheroic. Nothing has been done because nothing has been attempted—except the laying down of a number of warships, for which money can apparently be found when money for housing cannot. Here is an opportunity unique in its combination of propitious factors, money cheap and abundant, builders . urgently needing work, the scandal of the slums crying to Heaven. What is a National Government for if not to tackle such a problem as this ?
Previous page
