LIKELIHOOD OF ELECTION

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26221, 19 September 1950, Page 7

LIKELIHOOD OF ELECTION

Crucial Debate In Commons To-day

(N.Z.P.A —Reuter—Copvnpht)

( R ec. 11 p.m.) LONDON, Sept. 18. ment «» G»v«™nationalisation, an election will fojlo'w

.nSS Si?s a,?™!," 1 “ •«" if th. »X^7 rt^ w X'^lKX*’^r' , *• ■ c “ b '”' l the crucial vote. ’ members the party can muster for

Mr Mont Follick, one of the three Labour members who are abroad, is reported to be hurrying back to England from Greenland, while a Conservative, Sir George HarvieWatt. is flying from Gibraltar to attend the vote at Mr Churchill’s cabled request.

Pe Lab^iw°h e nearl X at full strength. Housed Com a m ?nT rlty ° f nine ,n the of J the Si^k members neceMary.” bly attend ’ “ by stretcher if * n . div ision of the summer on S ly°one Uab ° Ur mustered a majority of

The Conservatives and Liberals united against steel nationalisation, ex-

“Party Bitterness Growing”

The Government’s decision to challenge the Opposition on the Iron and Steel Act is a reflection of the increasing bitterness between Labour and the Conservatives, and paiticularly between some of the leaders of the two parties, writes the special correspondent of the New Zealand Press Association. It is also a reflection of the need felt by the leaders of the Labour Party to satisfy the growing demands by their Left Wing that there should be no further compromises. Though the Parliamentary Labour Party, the party itself and the Trades Union Congress have all backed the Prime Minister in approving rearmament. influential sections of all three organisations have made it plain that they have given this approval most reluctantly. Conservative support for the increased defence expenditure and Conservative chidings of the Government tor not having proposed it sooner have made Labour’s Left Wing more restive than ever, and have probably precipitated the decision to challenge the Opposition derisively.

The decision entails no change in Labour policy, for the leaders oi the party have insisted on a number of occasions that they would proceed with the nationalisation of iron and steel m the speediest manner possible. They could, if they so desired, delay implementation of the me?sure for 12 months, but there appears to be no inclination on the part of any substantial proportion of the party to take advantage of this breathing space. &

There is rather a feeling that if the party did take advantage of it, it would be accused of trying to appease the Opposition or of having second thoughts of what is now a basic question of policy. The Labour attitude is that the General Election votes in both 1945 and 1950 have given the Government adequate authority to proceed with the nationalisation of iron and steel, and the party’s generals are apparently convinced that if the Government is defeated in the House next week it can go to the country with a reasonable chance of success on this issue

Members Of Proposed Board

The Opposition is equally convinced that much of the Conservatives’ gains at the last General Election were due to the public’s objection to the nationalisation of iron and steel, and that another General Election would make this objection clear beyond all doubt.

Leaders of the iron and steel industry had agreed among themselves that they would net support nationalisation, anc that any of their members who might be invited by the Government to join the Iren and Steel Board would dec’ine. It. therefore, came as a shock to them when one of them, Sir John Green, was announced as a member cf the board in the position of deputychairman.

One of Sir John Green’s fellow industrialists in Sheffield, Mr J. B. Thomas, has already issued an angry statement accusing Sir John Green of breaking “a gentleman’s agreement’’ to have nothing to do with nationaliston.

There has also been a storm of criticism the general composition of the board on the grounds that with the pcssib’e execution of its chairman (Mr Ste’en Hardie) and Sir John Green, it includes no recognised leaders of industry. Even Mr Hardie, -it is asserted. has little claim to be considered an outstanding leader.

He is a wealthy Scottish industrialist and landowner who has never dis-

guised his sympathies with Labour but he is not among the hierarchy of Britain’s great steel-makers.

The Iron and Steel Federation which represents the employers has consistently opposed nationalisation and declined a Government request to submit a list of its members who might be considered suitable to serve on the board.

Considerable comment has also been aroused by omission from the Government’s nominees of Mr Lincoln Evans, secretary of the Iron and Steel Workers’ Union. It is claimed in some quarters that Mr Evans was invited to join the board but refused, after counselling the Government to defer nationalisation for the present. The Government’s hand has undoubtedly been strengthened by resolutions within its own ranks, demanding that Labour should stand rigidly on a policy of socialisation. There is also a feeling that if this week’s vote precipitates a General Election, Labour will receive strong support for its contention that the Conservatives on the eve of the rearmament drive are anxious to retain the profits of rearmament for private industry. There is no doubt, whatever. that the impending debate on the Conservatives’ censure motion will be extremely bitter and that whether there is a General Election or not the political divisions separating Britain’s two major political parties have become sharper than ever.