The Dominion. MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1935. MR. LLOYD GEORGE’S “NEW DEAL”

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 99, 21 January 1935, Page 8

The Dominion. MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1935. MR. LLOYD GEORGE’S “NEW DEAL”

Mr. Lloyd George, at the age of 72, has come forward with plans for a “New Deal” for Britain. I his veteran statesmans political career has been a remarkable one in many respects- Hao destiny called him to a different sphere of activity the tale of British history during his lifetime would certainly have made different reading. It is not necessary to accept his own testimony, as set forth in his War Memories, to the effect that he was largely instrumental in winning the War, for it must be generally conceded that had it not been for his energising influence and his stimulating leadership, there might have been a different story to tell. In his personality he combines with a sincere faith in democratic ideals and principles a temperament that inclines strongly to dictatorial methods to which the need for swift and momentous decisions during the War gave free scope. Herr Ludwig, in his recent book, Leaders in Europe, actually classes him with the dictators. The writer, distinguishing between statesmen whom he calls “servants of the people,” and those whom he describes as “rulers of the people,” includes among the first Nausen, Masaryk, Briand, Rathenau, and Motta, and among the latter not only Mussolini and Stalin, but also Venezelos and Lloyd George, because, though “democrats by principle and education,” they are “dictators by temperament.” If the British people had to choose between a Fascist dictatorship under Sir Oswald Mosely and democratic government headed by dictatorially-minded Mr. Lloyd George, they would without a doubt unhesitatingly choose the latter. All this is not to say that Mr. Lloyd George and his “New Deal’ are the man and the plan for the needs of the times. He complains in his birthday speech that the present National Government has not gone far and fast enough. The answer to that is that the Government took over a bankrupt estate from its Socialist predecessors, and had to face two tasks in their proper order—restore the solvency of the nation, and reconstruct its affairs as best it could with the means at hand. Critics of Mr. Roosevelt’s policy in launching his “New Deal ' declare that he has made the mistake of attempting the two tasks at once. Mr. Lloyd George’s method of moving faster and farther would be to raise “a great prosperity loan which would be oversubscribed by an enthusiastic public.” He would clip the wings of the Bank of England, and in many other ways go to work in very much the same style as a Socialist Government would do if it had a fresh opportunity. Not long ago, in a letter to an anonymous Liberal urging him to vote for the Labour candidate in the North Hammersmith by-election, he said that the latter “may go farther in some directions than you would care to travel. But the point he wishes ultimately to reach is a long way off. Meanwhile he is on the right road and steadily walking our way.” According to the comments on the speech there is little novelty in the general structure of the plan for the “New Deal.” Many of the proposals advocated are already in process of development, while others are on the ways, ready for launching. And the same may be said of the “dealer’s” remarks on foreign diplomatic and trade policy. In this connection it is' not a case of ‘ what Mr. Lloyd George would demand and obtain from Europe, but of what can be done to induce all the countries concerned to come to agreement. The patient labour of years has brought to fruition in recent months important developments which British diplomacy can claim as a tribute to its initiative and leadership. It may well be, however, as The Times suggests, that there is need for a reshuffling of the Government and a general “gingeringup,” and if Mr. Lloyd George’s clarion call should have this result he will have rendered a timely service to the nation. But real salvation will not come to the British people by abandoning the rules of financial discipline and resorting once more to the policy of borrow and boom with its attendant risk of “bust.”