The Dominion TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1931. A ONE-MAN PARTY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 110, 3 February 1931, Page 8

The Dominion TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1931. A ONE-MAN PARTY

Mr. Winston Churchill was once described by a journalist commentator as “the bad boy of British politics. occasion when he had executed one of his senes of J e pol t cal somersaults. Now he is again in the spotlight, an object of lively CritiC X latest Churchill episode was a ta* and most indiscreet speech condemning in reactionary language epr trend of British policy in India, . Delivered at a time when the utmost efforts of all parties were being exerted t 0 P^ se ?7 ® *1 atmosphere of harmony and mutual forbearance at the: Indiai Round Table Conference, it evoked sharp criticism from the Press, and nlaced the sneaker’s party in a somewhat awkward position. P There K all this that Mr. Churchill is attempting ,to rally about his picturesque and dramatic personality the die-hard element of the Conservative group. If that should prove, to be the case it is probably true, also, that he is pandering to a certain powerful section which is endeavouring to undermine Mr. Baldwin s position as Conservative leader. The difference between the two is that MrBaldwin is trusted but'lacks that kindling quality of eadership which rouses public imagination; Mr. Churchill is exactly the reverse. One of his critics remarked on a certain occasion that no ordinary man could change his coat so frequently as Winston Churchill has changed his party. “Yet,” he added, “this charge of treachery, so easily made against him, is absurd, for of him this is the trues*, thing that can be said: that he has never been disloyal to that one party to -which he owes his first allegiance, and which is known to the -world as Winston Churchill.” , Mr. Churchill seems to move above the rules of party politics. At the beginning of the century he resigned from the Conservative Party and accepted office with the Liberals. He was equally at home in the Lloyd-George Coalition but when the latter dissolved he returned to the Commons as an Independent,' from which advantageous position on the rail he slid easily into the second place on the Conservative Ministerial benches. In April, 1929, it was predicted of him that he might capture the 'leadership. “England to-day,” said a writer just before the general election of 'that year, “is governed by a coalition, an alliance of the Parliamentary Conservative Party and Mr, Winston Churchill.”. That was literally a truism, for in Hansard he was officially described, not as a Conservative, but as a “Constitutionalist.” \ This amazing political figure has been a soldier in several wars, has distinguished himself as a Press correspondent, written eleven notable books, and held such important Cabinet offices as Home Secretary, President of the Board of Trade, First Lord of the Admiralty prior to and during the first two years of the War, Minister of Munitions, Secretary of State for War, Air Minister, Secretary of State for the Colonies, and Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has been practically everything, in fact, except Prime Minister,. and even this consummation has been discussed as a serious possibility. His most spectacular political feat in Cabinet rank was his famous Budget of 1925 when,--among other things, he reduced income tax, increased . national pensions, and formulated the principle of safeguarding as a mild form of protection. Therein, it has been suggested, lies his greatest qualification for the Premiership. More than sheer brilliance of intellect or statesmanship, however, is required for the leadership of a Parliamentary party. Churchill’s supreme disqualification is the solitariness of his political personality. “Between the millions of his worshippers and the other millions who distrust and cordially detest him,” writes an experienced observer, “he stands almost without a friend—the loneliest and, in this respect, most pitiful figure of modern politics.” When the end comes to be written it will probably be said that Churchill never led anybody but himself, and even himself not always successfully.