1674 “Ge following extracts from two Financial Times articles (24th and 25th of July) speak more eloquently than a dozon editorials denouncing Wilson, The oxtracts only cover a few key passages and we advise all who can to go to the public library and read the originals,
"Thera is a growing curiosity throughout the country in the sort of policies which a Labour Government under lir, Wilson would be likely to follow, seeeed Lahour Government would be heavily committed to a policy of faster economic growth sustained by an incomes policy and involving a mich greater dezgrse of state intervention in industry than has bean normal under the Conservatives. Tho key instrument in thia policy would be an expanded MEDC, eeoontThara is little dcubt that a Labour Gevermment would make militant noises against ‘capital! and might well take some dramatic tut quite ineffe ctive measures againet it to impress the unions and its own supporters, But at the same time liz, Wilson and his colleaguos are aware of thea need ta got the cooperation of employers and the city in their policies, The need to reassure investors — particularly foreign investors = will be at least as urgent as tha nead to impress the unions,
",eeeot Labour Government might of course find itself driving towards zi tha proliferation of controls which existed in the 40's tut ite instinct would be to try to avoid this, The same goos for nationalisation, which is unlikely to extend beyond water, and probably (but not certainly steel.... However, whereas the Conservatives! instinct is to deal with industry by persussion, Labour's instinct is still to do it by threat...the threat of)! state direction and control....or state financial intorvention...a company failing to cooperate in the national plan might find itself having to face ® state owned or atate subsidised competitor; or it might be itself the object of a state talke~ovor bid with the object of replacing the Board of Directors by a more efficient or a more pliable one...
",,sethe state would not only operate on the basis of threats. State money would be poured more readily into private industry than is the case today.«ecossLabour's social security plans involve the accumulation of a very large National Superannuation Fund, a lerge part of the proceeds of which would probably be invested in industrial oquities.....The idea that seems to be evolving ia that Labour would take over land scheduled for redevelopment — 8 new town centre, for oxample — buy the frechold at existing use value, and then lease that to the develovors at a price that would give the property profit to the local authority or the State,
"This is an illustration of the way in which Labour's "new thinkers" now envissge an expanding aren of partnership between the State and public authorities on the one Hand and the private sector on the cther. Once again this idea is by no moans absent from the latest Conservative thinking cither, Hz. Callaghan'ts wealth tax is a probability, though it could hardly be brought into operation until Labour had been in power for 2 or 3 years, and by then more sophisticated means of tapping the same vein might have been found. Whether industry, as di stinct from individual owners of capital, would be taxed more hemvrily under a Labour Government is not clear: the probability is that it would, tt the difference could be fairly magineal,"
Thé Finnnsial Tines sees one cloud in tha sky for business:
",.,How far "hort" thon would a Labour Government led by ir, Wilson be? Initially, probably, substantially less so than many people in industry ond the City fear = and if all want woll, this could romain true throughon} its term of office. The danger is that, if things were to start to go badly wrong, the reaction of a Labour Government could well be to move sharply ‘Left! in the bad old-fashioned sense of a crusade against capital and "Big Businogss” with controls and nationalisations...."