The flowers that bloom in the spring, Tra la,
Bring promise of merry sunshine,
As we merrily dance and we sing, Tra la,
We welcome the hope they bring, Tra la,
Of a summer of roses and wine.
"Mr. Brown, Minister for Economic Affairs, directly asked the TUC to co= operate in an incomes policy to be introduced not later than next spring." So reported The Times on Tuesday morning. Mr. Brown has apparently suggested that the broad principles of the policy must be agreed by Christmas, so that its machinery and procedures can be elaborated on schedule. "The Minister") The “~ Times observed in passing,.."nearly spoilt the effect of his appeal by overenthusiasm. Some members of the General Council thought he was going altogether too fast and there were murmurs that they were there for discussion not to be told what to doe" Apparently the General Council have serious reservations. They want to know details of the Government's measures to control prices and profits; they are cautious about how the Government will determine its "guiding light"; they are apprehensive about the effectiveness of measures to protect workers who are unfavourably illuminated by it; and, above all, they are uncertain how much their members will be likely to swallow of Mr. Brown's new cureall, and how long it may take to force it down them. True, it appears that behind the negotiations Mr. Brown has left, ill-concealed, the implications of drastic deflationary measures which may be invoked if Labour's forces fail to "see reason,"
What now should be done? We of - The Week have expected this day to come ever since we began publication. It is likely to be an ill day, unless the left can find an effective response. Those who cry out against all forms of incomes policy, saying that under capitalism they are likely to prove effective only in restraint of wages, will almost certainly be proved right: but unfortunately, after the event. This is not good enoush for use We want the event to be avoided. The unions can hardly be expected to refuse to talk to Brown about incomes policy, since the majority of their members are only dimly aware of the dangers which lie in store if the machinery of collective bargaining is overhauled, or rather dismantled, in such a drastic way as is implied. But no one can blame the unions if they set out prior conditions before agreeing to enter discussions on the matter. This is an elementary safeguard.
The fact is that the price of such discussions can be a very simple one: employers control the income of workpeople, so they know all about it, to the last halfpenny. But no one controls the income of the employers: least of all the taxmen, Anyone who doubts this should read Professor Titmus' important book on "Income Distribution and Social Changee" The assumption of all socialists, even the most moderate, will be that any incomes policy to appear under Labour's umbrella must’ be redistributive. That is to say, it must to some extent trke from those who have, and give to those who have not. If this is not agreed, then all the chatter about "fair" or "ecuitable" standards is so much gibberish. But if it is egreed, then it clearly implies taking from the amounts available for rent, interest and profit and adding to those avaialable for salaries and wagese None of these things is possible, and it is even impossible to guarantee the continuance of things as the P unless you know pecurrtel what is the
exactly how useless balance sheets are in evaluating the real extort of profits is Mr. Harold Roses pamphlet; "Disclosure in Company Accounts", He complains that the shareholders are quite unable to properly check directors and evaluate their performance on the basis of the information furnished in balance sheets.»
If even the shareholders don't know how profitable a firm is, how can the unions of the Government judge it?