Hustle by Britain

It seems impossible that so little gasoline could carry so many so jar.

So Britons quipped last week after Britain's long disused automobiles had taken them on their first weekend outing in four years.*

On June 1, the British Ministry of Fuel and Power had restored the "basic ration" of five imperial gallons of petrol (six U.S. gallons) a month for small cars, seven for big ones. After the outing, Britain's lanes were liberally strewn with carefully preserved, blast-dented vehicles whose engines had broken down or whose tires had given out.

This homely incident was a prelude to Britain's first important step in reconversion. Last week, the Rt. Hon. Oliver Lyttelton, businesslike new head of the Production Ministry and Board of Trade in the new Churchill Cabinet, allocated 36 more Government war factories for civilian production--a total of 16 million square feet so allotted in the last month. Britain was in a hurry, and with reason.

The Test of Lyttelton. Many Britishers, even politicians and businessmen, were not yet aware of the immediate seriousness of the problem of getting back into business and increasing British exports. Said London's Economist last week:

"The supreme test of Mr. Lyttelton will be exports. . . .

"To pay for a volume of imports comparable to 1938 will require an increase of about 50% by volume in British exports. After a decade of protectionism, there were not many unnecessary imports seven years ago. The 50% increase in exports is not required to maintain some artificial standard of luxury. It is required to maintain Britain's living standard.

"The two great standbys of the British export trade have always been coal and textiles. British coal is now fabulously expensive and in critically short supply. Some of the textile industries, notably cotton, are experiencing great difficulty. ... No part of the 50% increase can be looked for in these two directions. ... If anyone, after examining the prospects industry by industry, is confident that such an increase in sales can be achieved, he has yet to be heard from in public."

The Economist laid its finger on the nub when it pointed out that the long-term prospect for British exports depends on comparative industrial efficiency: "It involves asking such questions as whether the universal prevalence of price rings and restrictive cartels [in Britain] is comparable with competitive prices in export markets; whether competition can be suppressed at home without making British industrialists incapable of competing abroad. It involves looking closely into the comparative productive efficiency of every British industry."

Ruthless Efficiency. Oliver Lyttelton last week faced at least part of this issue. As he swept like a new broom into the Board of Trade, he declared: "If we had to live mainly on the indigenous resources of this country we should perhaps be able to support 15 million and not 45 million people. . . . Let us see that we get the labor and the materials. Let us see that they are used in a farsighted and ruthless way to bring our industries to the highest state of efficiency."

With that object in view, he allotted the 16 million square feet of Government factory space as follows:

P: To the automobile industry, over 6 million.

P: To prefabricated housing and .building equipment, over 4 million.

P: To textile machinery production, 1.5 million.

P: To various engineering industries, 1.3 million.

P: To rubber manufactures, 1.3 million.

The favoritism shown to automobiles had a multiple motive: 1) to provide jobs quickly for workers who have been engaged in aircraft and tank factories, 2) to capture some of the export market before U.S. competition becomes too keen. It was based on the stipulation that at least 50% of the 175,000 cars which Britain hopes to turn out in the next twelve months will be exported. As in the U.S., only essential users with official priorities will be able to buy cars, and they will be further discouraged by a new -L-70-to--L-80 purchase tax (atop Britain's ruinous license tax of 25 shillings per horsepower*).

Most of Britain's famous motormakers (Morris, Austin, Rover, Rolls-Royce, Bentley, etc.) will soon be busy. Some of them have much greater problems than others. The Rover Co. had had its Coventry factory gutted. Riley and M. G. Car Co. had their jigs and body-making patterns destroyed. These immediate disadvantages may well be compensated by the eventual advantages of coming out with new models instead of modified 1939 models. .

The British are already planning where the new models will go. Except for a certain number of trucks, for which there is a vast demand in Europe, most of the modified 1939 models will be sold to Britons, while new models go overseas.

*For news of one jaunt, see SPORT.

* Britain and the U.S. use the same formula to determine taxable horsepower, a theoretical figure. Under this formula, taxable horsepower is based on the diameter and number of cylinders. It bears no fixed ratio to the power the engine generates. Thus the 1942 Plymouth, which boasted a 95 h.p. engine, was taxable both in the U.S. and Britain at 25.3 h.p.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.