COMMON WEALTH MOVEMENT

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23914, 5 April 1943, Page 6

COMMON WEALTH MOVEMENT

NEW BRITISH POLITICAL ORGANISATION

SEATS GAINED IN RECENT BY-ELECTIONS LONDON. March 23. Voting at recent British by-elections has created considerable interest in a new political organisation, “Common Wealth,” whose candidates have polled surprisingly well, states a staff correspondent of the “Sydney Morning Herald.” The organisation, which does not call itself a party, is led by Sir Richard Acland, M.P., formerly a Liberal. Sir Richard Acland’s estates in Somerset and Devon include sea coast, moorland, forest, and farmland, and have been in the family for hundreds of years. The Acland baronetcy was created in 1644. Sir Richard Acland is aged 36. “Common Wealth” was formed on July 26, 1942, following a conference between the “1941 Committee” and "Forward March,” both of which were organisations crystallising from dissatisfaction with the existing political parties, departmental administration, and the progress of the war effort. It is described as “born of the frustration of ordinary men and women,” and aims at “translating the hopes and longings of millions into dynamic, effective political action.” The movement, in a statement of its aims, says it will not accept a revised version of the old order, but wants a new political, social, and economic democracy, springing from the people themselves, with citizens recognising duties as well as claiming rights, with service to the community and not self-interest as the motive force. Ownership of Resources It adds that these objects cannot be achieved while so much wealth anti power are in the hands of a few, hence the new order’s economic basis must be common ownership of great resources. For example, all substantial factories and trading enterprises, mines, banks, railways, etc., must belong to the community as a whole. Its immediate war aims are defined fiSI - “ 1. Greater equality in work, payment, sacrifice, and opportunity, as between soldiers and civilians, between shareholders and directors and workmen, between men and women. 2. Transfer to common ownership of services, industries, and companies in which managerial inefficiency ami the profit motive are harming the war effort. 3. Reform of Government supply organisations to put them under men Without financial interests in the commodities and industries they are controlling. 4. Establishment of works production councils, representing managements, technicians, and workers. 5. Elimination of Civil Service red tape. 6. Maximum freedom of expression. 7. British initiative in planning offensive grand strategy. 8. Repudiation of any vengeance policy against the ordinary people of the countries where Fascists are overthrown. 9. Preliminary post-war planning. Attitude to Political Parties The movement supports Mr Church--111 as the nation’s leader, but not as leader of the Conservative Party, to which it is hostile. The movement, though critical at present of Labour leadership, believes it can effectively co-operate with Labour supporters and the trade unions, while mainly espousing middle-class interests. It also would work with the Liberal rank and file, but not with Liberals desiring a return to pre-war conditions. It is opposed to the Communists, as tong as they are tied internationally. All these parties are opposed to the “Common Wealth” movement—it does not call itself a party and does not use the word after the title. It has registered 250 branches, varying from 50 to 100 members. It also has 2000 individual members not definitely attached to branches. The signatories to the declaration forming the movement included Mr J. B. Priestley, the first chairman, who has siqce resigned, Mr G. Reakes. M.P., and Mr Tom WintringhajOi^abßi Those who signed a later dedacadnrc included Mr R. W'. G. MacßaymofJ Sydney, Mr Vernon Bartlett, M.P.. the Bishop of Bradford, Dr. Blunt, Mr E. W. G. Hulton, publisher, and Mr C. E. M. Joad.