SIR,—Allow me to plead 'not guilty' to Professor Taylor's charge
of ignorance. It is a tribute to the perspicacity of his concept that it has become accepted without credentials intb geographical speech. 'Burying the Coffin' seems to have produced a wail of lamentation, together with a Wellsian fantasy from Mr. McMorran, but none of this is particularly helpful. One might lament the passing of the feudal system or the rustic smock, but it would have been neither sensible nor practicable to have attempted to retain them. Everything changes whether we like it or not, and it is more realistic to look forward so as to attempt to understand what is occurring and to plan accordingly, rather than to hark back senti- mentally to the discarded bits and pieces.
Although we might now have reached a stage of emancipation from environment where a wide range of industrial siting has become possible, we can still not eliminate a sacrifice of general efficiency if we try to ignore locational disadvantages. Much industrial plant which is at present situated for non-economic reasons is witness to this. My point is that minimum production costs in any industry will benefit the whole consuming public, while if for social reasons these are sacrificed, then the com- munity as a whole will be subsidising the manu- facturer. If this latter is generally desired, then it might be an idea to set up a publicly financed 'National Industrial Service' to dole out a form of national assistance to the uneconomic producer. Such a policy would certainly be more honest than the present pretence in high places and elsewhere that the 'Drift' is due to a bit of misunderstanding, and that everything will soon be put right.
It appears Odd that a• nation which has just accepted with such equanimity a radical change in its external relations should now have as its de- clared policy the prevention of a complementary change in its internal economic pattern.
Previous page
