Government and business •
Sir : One can accept a good deal of what Mr Lever says in his article 'Government and busi- ness' (5 April) without sharing his political views.
I for one would certainly agree with him on his two basic premises: first, that modern govern- ment, whether one likes it or not, cannot help being one of the major determining factors in the market-place, and second, that the combined pressures of universal suffrage and social con- science make it impossible for government to opt out of responsibility for economic growth and full employment.
Many of us, however, part company with Mr Lever over his euphoric feeling that the 'style' that Socialism 'brings' to what he calls 'the running of the mixed economy' constitutes a basis on which private enterprise can suc- cessfully deploy its potential. Words like 'con- sensus,' partriership' and 'mixed economy' are vaguely dangled before our eyes to hypnotise us into believirig that the state is cruel only to be kind; but there are those who question whether this form of hocus-pocus works.
One has only to consider two of Mr Lever's propositions to see how insecurely the claim to 'run' the mixed economy is founded : 1. Mr Lever says 'the Labour government has assigned a role of vital importance to the private sector within the social structure of the country as a whole.' In this patronising phrase lies the quintessence of the unreality of Labour's attitude towards private enterprise. The notion that the private sector can be given a kind of licensed playpen in which to romp around is totally unrealistic and induces an atmosphere in which private enterprise is unlikely to give of its best.
2. Mr Lever says: 'modern government is up to the neck in business.' If by this he means that many decisions taken by modern govern- ment and its agencies have powerful repercus- sions on business, few would quarrel with that assertion; indeed it would be a mere restate- ment of the proposition that government is an important factor in the modern market. Unfor- tunately the phrase 'up to the neck in business underlines a new and ominous posture of government: the desire, almost exuberant, to be conspicuous in the organisation of business `deals' (perhaps to kill the notion that Socialist governments do not understand the wealth- creating process?). In fact there is no need for any administration to be 'up to the neck in busi- ness'; it should rather be concerned with im- proving the methods by which its inherent powers over the market-place (and one agrees with Mr Lever that these must nowadays go far beyond their traditional scope) are being exer- cised, with making the interface between govern- ment and business smoother and more effective. It is the neglect of this urgent task for the irre- levant one of pseudo-tycoonery, of being 'up to the neck in business,' which has been an im- portant factor in some of the national priorities going so wrong in the last two or three years.
Whatever views one may have about the doctrinal background, one's chief anxiety in regard to the present course arises on the vital question of relevance and practicality.
Previous page
