A Crusade Against Unemployment MHERE is an old remark that
when people say "Something must be done!" they are generally contemplating something silly. The remark returns to one's memory when one looks back upon the competitive schemes which were promised at the General Election as cures for unemployment. It is not far from the truth that the public is now devoutly mistrustful of all schemes. It does not take any Party's word. If it is itself showing a tendency towards a Protectionist cure it is because it is suffering from the usual malesuada fames—the hunger which prompts men to evil courses, or, to put it differently, the distress which inclines men to say, "Anything is better than what we are enduring. Let's try something else." - • The one hope, as it seems to us, is a national policy in which all parties would combine to create employment; The merely competitive schemes which owed their exist- ence less to real economic conviction than to a desire to outdo the other side must be put away if the common effort is to succeed. Such a joint policy as we have in mind will have to be strictly conditioned. by the circum- stances. One of the chief facts to be admitted is that most Unionists honestly believe that there is no cure for unemployment except tariffs. Another fact of correspond- ing importance is that the Liberals and a majority of the Labour Party believe that tariffs spell disaster to people living on small wages in the great industrial districts. Can two such opposites be expected to come together ? We cannot see why they, should no if it were acknow- ledged, as assuredly it ought to be, that the efforts of everybody able to think and of everybody able to work are required to get us past the terrible dead point which British industry. has reached. After all, the moral energy of a whole people provides a far more powerful impulse than any mere economic arrangement, however helpful that may be in itself. We simply cannot believe that if all the Parties agreed upon a policy which represented the greatest common measure of their convictions some- thing could not be done to move the mountain of unem- ployment.
That is a good enough general reason for combination, but there is a particular reason which should appeal strongly to the Unionist Party. The Prime Minister has been tentatively suggesting a non-Party attack on unem- ployment. Mr. Lloyd George has responded with the proposal that a non-Party body should be set up somewhat on the lines of the Committee of Imperial Defence. So far the Unionists have made little or no response, excusing themselves (as they are quite entitled to do) on the ground that nothing but Protection is of any use. Yet if there is to be a crusade all must follow the sign. It would be useless to set troops marching to the assault of unem- ployment if their flanks are to be harassed as they go by those who think that the crusade is a fool's errand. It would be similarly useless to ask the Unionists to make concessions unless the Government are prepared to make concessions themselves. We think that the least the Government could _do would be to promise that for a given period the existing Safeguarding duties and the McKenna duties should not be touched. Mr. Snowden would frown, no doubt, but his incapacity for compromise ought not to be allowed to obstruct a hopeful movement. Although the Unionists could not reasonably be requiied to stop preaching Protection they could reasonably be invited, without prejudice to their. future policy, to co- operate on terms in an all-Party. Council. For what would be the result if they refused ? The result, as we see it, would be so bad from the national point of view that we can hardly contemplate a non pommels from so disinterested a spirit as Mr. Baldwin.
The particular reason why Unionists should listen to the appeal for an all-Party treatment of unemployment is that by leaving Labour and the Liberals to themselves Unionists would be deliberately resigning all power to control or influence the most important matter in our domestic politics. The Government and the Liberals left to themselves might well bring to light again a con- siderable part of their almost forgotten electoral prescrip- tions for ending unemploynient. The authors of the Liberal policy had a mania for road-making. Nobody is less inclined to under-estimate the value of good roads than we are. They are indispensable for free circulation, and therefore for easier trade. Roads, however, like all other commodities, have their margin of utility. There is a point where road-making ceases to be economi- cally worth while, and nothing seems to us to be more clearly demonstrated now than that our roads are very nearly as good as we can afford for the present. Higher expenditure might raise the speed of the motorist, but would it facilitate trade enough to justify itself ? Sir Henry Maybury, who is a very good judge, has calculated that 120,000,000 in the next five years would be the limit of economic expenditure upon the roads. From extrava- gance on the roads we might go on to many other common points in Labour and Liberal policy, and show that the Unionists by excluding themselves from co-operation would be doing an exceedingly poor service to the national interest. The Government, feeling that their majority was safe, might go in for Import Boards, a great extension of pensions, huge loans and indeed a large part of the Mosley memorandum. The Whigs once had their clothes stolen while they were bathing, but this would be worse. Labour and the Liberals would not want to wear Unionist clothes, but they could go off with the bathing machine.
Now let us assume that the Unionists would agree to join in a crusade. The psychological effect of the feeling throughout the country that all hands were at work to save the ship would be enormous. The fiscal truce, which we have suggested, would create confidence. Protectionists talk a great deal about the necessity of confidence when Mr. Snowden threatens any Protectionist duty, but they seem to forget that there can be no real confidence so long as the Labour Party remains a Free Trade Party, and has the intention of removing Protective tariffs whenever it can. How could money be most productively spent ? We agree, of course, wholeheartedly with Mr. Thomas that it is a crime to spend money upon schemes which bring no return. We believe that the two great objects which would justify the spending of more money, and which would definitely create employment, are agriculture• and Colonial development.
It is only a dream that this country could ever be quite self-supporting in the production of food, but there is no reason at all why nearly 1,000,000 more men should not be employed upon the land. The prosperity of the land would give a 'fillip to many other industries. It is impos- sible to conceive anything which ought to be more after the heart of a Labour Government than placing _ small- holders on the land. Further, if there were a national effort comparable with the immense effort in the War, we shouldsee land which is now out of cultivation—we _ _ do not forget the allotments—springing back into cultiva- tion. It is really grotesque that able-bodied men should be drawing insurance benefits month after month, and even year after year, while large tracts of fertile land lie untouched not far from the centre of great cities. It may be objected that the land is too far from the workers' homes. But why should the people who are able to go in motor-coaches, travelling at more than thirty miles an hour, to visit a football match or the sea- side be unable to travel at the same speed to the places where they could grow potatoes, cabbages, or fruit ? It is all a matter of organization. The " small " man competing with his equally " small " neighbour would probably fail, but he would certainly not fail if there was co-operation such as has produced magnificent results in other agricultural countries.
Co-operation to succeed must be well-nigh universal. Where is the genius in the Labour Government who will apply the magic touch, saying that agricultural co-opera- tion must and shall be organized ?
. The rationalization of Imperial trade as well as the development of the Crown Colonies would, in our view, be definitely better accomplished without tariffs. Tariffs would be sure to cause friction in what is now a happy family. And a policy in the Crown Colonies of setting up virtually prohibitive tariffs against foreigners would be a dangerous break with the ancient British tradition and would have to be imposed upon native populations who cannot speak for themselves. In the Dominions, no doubt, a good deal might be done by Preferential Tariffs which did not involve raising the wall against the foreigner. Every reduction of a tariff against a member of the British family would in that case be an approximation to Free Trade.
As Sir Robert Hadfield declared not long ago in the Spectator, if the best business brains of the Empire "got together " and started an Empire Development Board it would be quite possible to have a scheme ready for the sanction of the Imperial Conference in the autumn. At the very least let us have an inquiry by an All-Party Conference which could tell us how much common ground there is—how far employment could be created apart from all these fiscal wrangles which keep the Parties very much alive while our industries come week by week neares to death.
Previous page
