VERY DIFFICULT PERIOD

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 71, Issue 37, 23 November 1950, Page 5

VERY DIFFICULT PERIOD

BRITISH LABOUR GOVERNMENT DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS (From A. W. Mitchell, Special Correspondent, N.Z.PA.). (Rec. 9.40 a.m.) LONDON, Nov. 22. Britain’s Labour Government is experiencing a difficult period, both in domestic and foreign affairs. In addition to a wide measure of dissatisfaction throughout the country over housing and the cost of living, the coal shortage and the abrupt announcement of the need to spend dollars to buy coal, is causing concern not only among the Government’s opponents but also its supporters. While attempts are being made to grapple with these domestic problems, two groups in the Parliamentary Labour Party have tabled motions expressing diequiet over Mr Bevin’s foreign policy. In addition the Government has been embarrassed by reports published in New York by two responsible news papers that a powerful group in Cabinet, comprising Mr Aneurin Bevan, Mr John Strachey and Mr Strauss are seeking to scale down the British rearmament programme. Though these Ministers have officially denied the report, its publication comes at a most awkward time, for Britain is seeking dollars for rearmament. Most of these embarrassments have come to a head during the past few days. . Appeal to Miners Mr P. J. Noel-Baker, Minister of Fuel, is now engrosised in discussions with representatives of the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mine Workers to increase coal output. Yet another appeal to the miners, for more production has been made by Lord Hundley, chairman of the hoard. He said that unless Britain gets moie coal, the whole basis of British life may be threatened. There are reports that coal for homes may have to be cut if the output continues to lag. Motions on foreign policy must be embarrassing to Mr Ernest Bevin for, though one was tabled by Mr Michael Foot and Left-Wing Socialists, another was put down by a group of 40 M.P.’s. including the prominent trade unionists, many of whom have been among the Foreign Secretary’s most loyal supporters. Tliere are three motions. Two urge the limitation of the Korean war and a four-Power conference, ahd a third, wihch Is signed by trade urges an early meeting of Foreign Ministers, preparation by the Government in co-operation with other Pow ers of a policy for lasting peace, economic development ahd a scheme for a gradual world disarmament. Some 70 members have signed at least one of the motions; It is stated that a sense of‘ frustration over the course 1 of foreign policy is growing among them and there is a widespread feeling that the Government should take some initiative to resolve the deadlock between the Western Powers and the Soviet. It is also stated that , many Socialists are resentful at the present position, and feel thaf the Government is either. prodded along by the United States or follows belated policies urged by the Opposition. The “Daily Telegraph’s” political correspondent observes that while none of the motions can be regarded as definitely hostile, there is a desire for a positive contribution to international relations. He continues:. “A small number of Socialists are saying, however, that no fresh impetus can be expected from Mr Bevin in his present state of health. The implication is that he should be replaced. There can be no doubt that this mood of frustration is shared by a number of his Ministers. Of these Mr Aneurin Bevan is said to be the leader.” Personal Frustration ■ “He may also he suffering under a sense of personal frustration in that he bears the burden of the unpopular housing policy, but can see no prospect of escape into an office where he might retrieve and enhance his reputation.” Almost coinciding with the tabling of the three motions came a New York report that Mr Bevan, Mr Strachey and Mr Strauss were seeking to scale down rearmament. The article, published in the “New York Times” and “New York HeraldTribune,” and a message from Washington says that information gathered when four American correspondents lunched with Mr Bevan, who made no stipulation that his remarks were “off the record.” He is alleged to have said that the British Government’s policy was to reduce armament expenditures. Mr Strachey and Mr Strauss were not present at the luncheon, but subsequent inquiries by correspondents led to the belief that they concurred with Mr Bevan’s views.

The State Department began making inquiries and was assured by the Foreign Office that the alleged statement by Mr Bevan did not represent the views of the British Government. Whether there are differences of opinion inside the British Cabinet on the subject can .only be speculated, but the “incident” coincides with the tabling of the motions, and also reports that Britain is running into serious difficulties over her rearmament programme. It is stated that Britain, having increased her programme to £3,600,000,000 sterling, to be spent over three years, asked the United States to provide the equivalent of £550,000,000 in what is known as free dollars. These are required for machine tools and armaments, but America found difficulty in meeting the request. Conversations followed between the heads of the United States E.C.A. Mission, Mr Batt and Mr Hugh Gaitskell, but they have not progressed far. Mr G. Shinwell also discussed the position when he was in Washington, where the outlook for free dollars is said to have become bleak since the mid-term elections.