ve produce hore, comaents by two journals of big business the Finencial Tines and the Mcononis on the Government's National Incomes Commission. The formor spys, in effect, that the Govornment has intrduced 'old nic',without thinking things out,as a political move, the lattor thinks it out for the Government and calls for it to be the start of a tough incomes policy. The Finoncial Times of eT July sayss
to 4.eeescet up an Incomes Commission. All of this was anticipated, all of it is very fine as far as it goes. But the timing of the announcenent, particularly where the Incomes Commission is concerned, leads one to suspect that the Governmont is primarily interested in convincing the country that it has a policy to offer and that the practical difficulties implicit in any incomes policy have yet to be properly thought out."
The Sconomist of 28 July has this to adds
"By far the most important part of the Prime llinister's mouse in tho bag is therefore obviously the proposed National Incomes Commission. The Govern—ment (which has reiterated that it will restrain aggregate profits by “fiscal and other means") will henceforth "indicate publicly its views that this new commission should be asked for its advice before any settlement is reached of any really mejor or pace-setting wage demand. But one had better set down brutally hore the diff erent ways in which it would seom that this experi-ment might go.
"The least useful outcome will be if the commission merely becomes a device whoreby groups of workers, usually in the public service, who had not got that year's average inflationary wage increase, are enabled to get it as well as (a nd on top of) everybody else. This would merely then be a device for spreading a little more infletion a littlo more ostensibly fairly all round. The second least useful outcome will be if after the Government has “indicated publicly" that it thinks the commission should advise on particular wage claims, these claims are then often blithely settled by inflationary wage increases without any regard to the Government's statement of work. Politicians would then no doubt regard the whole experiment merely as a dovice for casting odium on the Government. In fact, however, even a development of this sort would not be wholly pernicious compared with the present appalling mess; it would be a positive sign that the Government no longerzegarded itself as purely neutral even in private wage settlo~ ments, and it is prohable that the nationalised industries at least would then have greater inhibitions about granting wage increases af which the commission would plainly disapprove.
"The best outcome will plainly be if the commission becomes the main body for setting the pace of each year's main wage settlements, in line with expected increases in national productivity. Bluntly, however, the trade unions are likely to accept its recommendations only if they think that they cannot get more money by other means: in other words by threatening or fighting strikes. Probably they will think for some time they can, ‘Whether the Government should “insist" on referring particular claims to the commission even over the protests of the union concerned therefore boils down to two questions. Is it better that an agroement to refer a wage claim to the commission should be the eventual ladder held out to a union to climb down on to after an unsuccessful strike, albeit a pretty bitter ladder because it will presumably be one it has refusod to countor— ance before calling its members out? Or is it better that any union which icontemplating strike action should know that if it refuses to take part in argu~ ment before the commission, an inquiry into its wage claim might go forward none the less, without its own official summary of its own case having been heard (if it is really silly enough to boycott the proceedings)? On balance we would prefer the second alternative, because there would then be bhagoned forth a specific figure that the public would know had been adjudged to be the maximum increase consistent with the national intorest, the maximum terms on which it would be e conomically sensible to settle or avert the strike. If it be said that this is a receipt (as written wo think this should be 'recipe!, Gd. Note) for industrial strife, tho answor is that, if a tough incomes policy is marricd to an effective policy for growth, there need be no strife, bscause all will benefit."