NOTES OF THE DAY

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 288, 1 September 1931, Page 8

NOTES OF THE DAY

“If there is no alternative between a tariff and a cut in the dole,” declares Mr. George Lansbury, “then lam for a tariff.” So much for British Socialism’s free trade principles. The dole is sacrosanct, and rather than dispense with it Mr. Lansbury and others of his way of thinking in the late Labour Government would further add to the burdens of wage-earners, large and small. As recently ago as March last British political opinion appeared to be fatalistically tied to the dole. As M. Andre Siegfried remarked in his searching and telling analysis of the state of British industry, “It is easy to talk from a distance. When you are on the spot you realise that no politician would dare to attack openly the policy of the dole; he would lose his seat.” Therein M. Siegfried was not a true prophet. - A few have dared, and others no doubt will follow. As for Mr. Lansbury’s alternatives there is nothing more certain than that there will be a cut in the dole, and it may shortly be followed by a tariff. * * ' * #

Fascist opinion in Italy, which rather parades its capacity for self-disciplinc and sacrifice in the national interest, doubts whether even the new Cabinet in Britain will have sufficient courage to force the labouring classes to live less extravagantly. Evidently there is an impression in European countries that between the dole and the coddling influence of Socialism in Government the British people in the mass has been softened and has become irresponsive to the spur of necessity. There is little doubt that the British character has deteriorated under these demoralising influences. To suggest, however, that the time has passed when the traditional doggedness and tenacity of the race might be revived and stimulated by the right kind of leadership is very far from the truth. But Britons must be given leaders, not nurses. If the new regime fails in this respect then the situation will indeed be serious. There is, however, an air of set purpose and grim determination about the activities of the new leaders that augurs well for the outcome.

In a letter from the Minister of Education to the Royal Agricultural Society of New Zealand is disclosed the disappointing fact that there is no demand among boys for farm training. It will be remembered that the Government last year made an effort to encourage New Zealand lads to take up farming pursuits, and made arrangements to establish a training institution at Penrose, near Masterton. The Minister now says that “in spite of personal canvassing and lecturing by two senior officers of my department throughout the district, and the cordial assistance of the Department of Agriculture, the response from parents willing to send their sons for training was insufficient to enable the scheme to be established.” I he public is left by the terms of the Minister's letter to conclude that at present, at any rate, farming bolds out no attractions for New Zealand boys. If such is the fact, then boys and parents are taking a short-sighted view. Now is the time to go in for farming when entry can be made at the ground-floor. People, however, are obstinate in this, that they will venture too much at the height of the boom and too little when it bursts. It is this mass psychology that has created the depression, not any of the other scapegoats now being trotted out for chastisement.

There is something almost pathetic in the figure presented by a Parliamentary leader repudiated by his own following for refusing to sacrifice principle for expediency. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has been doing that for the greater part of his life. Originally an extreme Left Wing radical, and a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist (as he is to-day), he found himself during the War, when patriotic ardour was at its height, an object of public execration. In office he was guilty of backsliding on several occasions but not on what he would call a first-class issue. Now devotion to principle as he conceives it has alienated him from the Labour Party Executive, his own electoral executive has asked him to resign, and he finds himself at one with Conservatives and Liberals in the supreme task of rescuing his country from financial and economic chaos. Therein it is possible to perceive the difference between Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Arthur Henderson. The former is an idealist, the other a politician. It is really doubtful whether Mr. MacDonald’s qualities and temperament would be of lasting benefit to any party, for political idealists are apt to be uncomfortable bedfellows. Nevertheless, Mr. MacDonald has done a great thing in abandoning the wreckers, and it may be hoped that he will find the nation's respect for his action some compensation for his rejection by his former followma.