The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1923. SUBSTANCE AND SHADOW IN GREAT BRITAIN

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 54, 28 November 1923, Page 6

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 1923. SUBSTANCE AND SHADOW IN GREAT BRITAIN

« Some political prophets in the United Kingdom are confidently predicting a victory for tho Baldwin Government with its tariff policy. Others arc as confidently predicting an opposite result. No doubt, if tho prophets as a body could be induced to speak their minds openly they would admit that their.actual feeling is one of great uncertainty. Considered at large, the conditions of the election about to take place are abnormal. In its present dimensions the British electorate has hardly yet found itself. Since the franchise was broadened during the war period, there has been no political test on normal domestic issues. The khaki election of 1918 certainly was not in that category. The election of a year ago, in its turn, was dominated by emergency issues of foreign policy. , . , . . , , „,. It is thus a raw and untried electorate that is being asked o authorise or forbid a sweeping change—almost a right about lacc— ln ttle trado fiscal policy Britain has pursued since the middle of last century. The outcome of such a contest cannot be estimated solely with reference to figures of party strength and the detail merits of the issues at stake. It is likely to be affected in a very material degree by factors of popular opinion, sentiment, and prejudice, which ao one can measure confidently beforehand. One aspect of tho contest, however, is becoming better marked as it proceeds. This is that the Unionist leader and his supporters are relying on plain talk, while his opponents are relying on tai] talkMu. Baldwin has mapped out a policy that- almost anyone can understand, examine, and discuss. On the other hand, all that is plain y disclosed in the platform utterances of Liberal and Labour spokesmen is that they are opposed to the Unionist Government and its policy. Even the proclaimed reunion of tho Liberal Party, which has given rise to much blowing of party trumpets, is not altogether convincing. A report of the recent “great scene” at Paisley suggests that Mr. Asquith rather wondered how he camo to bo occupying the same platform as Mr. Lloyd Georgs. . That Mr. Lloyd George was “infinitely glad” to be ip this position need not be doubted. There is little enough trace of reciprocal gladness in Mr. Asquith’s coldly measured statement: — They offered a united front in defence of » vital principle. Mr. Lloyd George’s presence was sufficient and Conclusive evidence that they were one. It would be interesting to know whether Mr. Asquith still regards this evidence aS sufficient now that Mr. Lloyd George is filling the air with loud but vaguely-worded promises of what the Liberals will do if they get into office. At Newcastle, for instance, he declared that the only good thing in the Labour programme had been borrowed ‘ from the Liberals, “whose gigantic policy would completely revolutionise the conditions-of the people.” Probably there is no man in the British Isles to whom demagogic ranting of this kind is more repugnant than it is to Mn. Asquith. It is only necessary to peruse recent speeches by Mr. Asquith and Mr Lloyd George to perceive that the “gigantic policy, to which the latter alludes is non-existent. In the circumstances, it cannot be supposed that the Liberal leaders are happily placed in their recon, structed double harness, 1 . It is perfectly plain that there are only two broad alternatives before the people of Great Britain. One is to authorise a bold attempt to remedy trade depression and unemployment and to provide a broad foundation for economic co-operation within the Empire. The other is to rely ou the hope of drifting gradually into better times. .. 1 That and nothing else is the reality underlying Mr. Lloyd George’s bombastic'talk about a gigantic policy which would completely revolutionise the conditions of tho people. There is as little rea] substance in the similarly flamboyant electioneering talk of tho Labour Party. . ... • No one seriously supposes that either of these parties will on the present occasion secure a majority and take office,, and it is apparently as impossible for them, to work together as it is for either of them to combine with the Unionists. If between them the opposition parties succeeded in so reducing the Government s majority that it could not give effect to its tariff policy, a political stalemate prosumably would be reached. . . It will be a very great pity if Mr. Lloyd George with his showy but empty phrases succeeds in obscuring and confusing the vital fact that there is no positive alternative to the policy Mr. Baldwin is asking “common, plain, blunt, and honest people” to support.