THE ELECTION

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26477, 19 July 1951, Page 5

THE ELECTION

Sir, —Victory by the Government in its battle with the waterfront has gone to the Prime Minister’s head. Being a Scot, naturally my concern is the burden on the Treasury. After such a prolonged and costly struggle, one assumes a sane government would have sought means of retrenchment as easement of the strain on the people’s money. Retrenchment, forsooth! We are now to have a circus, referred to by Mr Holland as “democracy at work.’’ For long years my view has been quite the opposite, namely “democracy at play,” with much clowning and counterfeit. If proof of this be needed, I commend your public to read again the letter of your correspondent. H. T. Willis, in your issue of Saturday last. I suggest that it is what takes place between these circuses that determines whether or not democracy is at work. —Yours, etc., ANDREW KYDD. July 18, 1951.

Sir,—The picture of Mr Holland seething with indignation over the Opposition’s accusations is rather ludicrous, and his decision to dissolve Parliament will deceive no one. Had he taken this course six months ago —at a- time when there was far more justification for such an action —I venture to assert that his party would have been ousted from office. To-day, with the Labour Party out of favour through its leaders’ deplorable attitude towards the recent industrial trouble, his re-election appears a foregone conclusion. By making this decision he is practically assured of a further three years in office. Had he waited until his term expired, in 16 months time, the position could quite easily have been reversed. In any case there is no predicting just how his party might have fared. To my mind he has taken unfair advantage of his powers.—Yours, etc.. DISAPPOINTED. July 18. 1951.

Sir,—Your correspondent “Freedom” must have an idea of “freedom” which is inconsistent with the general trend of his argument. Mr Holland’s object is obviously to destroy the workers’ freedom and create conditions suitable for capitalistic exploitation. When a tpan in his responsible position allows the cost of living to rise, largely because he wants the satisfaction of a puny victory over a few thousand watersiders, and after employing methods in no way comparable with the word “freedom," then I think it is time we had a change of Government. He relies on people being dazzled by the relatively minor issue of, recalcitrant watersiders, and remaining blindly unaware of his true objective, the crushing of a free trade union movement by dictatorial power.—Yours, etc., TUC. July 18, 1951.