MR. CHURCHILL AND HIS POLITICS

Dominion, Volume 38, Issue 258, 28 July 1945, Page 8

MR. CHURCHILL AND HIS POLITICS

Dual British Attitude Suggested

(By Telegraph.—Uress Assn.—Copyright (Special Correspondent.)

(Received July 28. 12.50 a.m.) LONDON, July 27.

On the cold and sober morrow of the general election one thing is clear; it is that, whatever criticism 'Mr. Churchill’s action evoked during the election campaign, he is still held in veneration and affection by the British people, with deep gratitude for his great services as war leader.

The “Daily Herald,” chief newspaper spokesman of the victorious party, declares: “There is not the slightest doubt that gratitude to Mr. Churchill as war leader, admiration of his genius and reverence for his courage is shared by every party and every social class.” It.adds: “There must be millions who •were deeply distressed by the thought that if they obeyed their judgment and conscience they would cast their vote against him. But they decided that there was no alternative. To vote for Churchill was to vote for all the evils of Toryism. To vote for Churchill was to oblige and assist the hard, calculating men who were hemming him in. and exploiting his renown. To vote for Churchill was to perpetuate the exploitation of the many by the few. To vote for Churchill was to vote for inefficiency and profit-snatching in industries which are vital to the nation’s wellbeing and to the successful reconstruction of world ecqnomy. To vote for Churchill —since of his own free will he placed himself at the head of the Tories—was to vote for bad times which the British people are resolved shall never again be experienced. And so, in spite of their affection for Mr. Churchill, which will always remain . . . millions who have never belonged to any party stood firm by their convictions that this time Labour must be returned to power.” Never Before Known.

“The Times” leader declares that British history afforts no example of a reversal of the national leadership on the morrow of a crowning victory. Foreign comment alone sufficiently measures the great sta„ture of the figure who is now suddenly withdrawn from the representation of his country and from . the councils of the world. “Never in our history have the hopes and resolves of the people and their authority among the nations been so summed up in a single commanding personality,” it continues. “In the sense that he has been during the war years the temporal embodiment of his age of eternal England, Winston Churchill can have no successor —just as the situation that called him to his transcendent eminence does not recur.” After remarking that no-one, however paradoxical it may seem to the foreign observer, will dream of interpreting the crushing defeat inflicted upon his party as bringing in any way into question his place in the affections and gratitude of the people who have followed him through their deadliest peril to their most complete triumph, the paper says. “He will make a formidable, dominating figure on the front Opposition bench, and his presence there will be an effective assurance to the public that he is still active in the service of the State.” Greatest Leader. The “Manchester Guardian” says: “It is now plain that Mr. Churchill's broadcasts and his attempt to turn the election into a personal plebiscite did him immense harm. His tour was a great personal success; politically, it meant nothing, and rather it stirred up active resentment.

“The country will part with Mr. Churchill with many regrets. After all, he was the greatest Prime Minister we have known since Gladstone, and the greatest national'leader since Pitt, but he has been the symbol of an attitude of mind against which the world has turned.”

DEFEAT OF MR. AMERY Indians’ Satisfaction

(Received July 28. 12.40 a.m.) LONDON. July 27. Indians of all parties and ereeds are welcoming the Labour victory and are unrestrained in expressions of satisfaction at Mr. Amery’s 'defeat, says Reuters’ Bombay correspondent. The Congress president, Dr. Azad, . said: “The news of Amery’s defeat is good.” A leading member pf Congress, Rajendra, said Mr. Amery’s defeat was welcome not so much because there was a hope of Labour doing something sensational for India but because Messrs. Churchill and Amery had proved themselves thorough ly reactionary and inimical to the Indian aspirations. A change under such conditions was always welcome. The Moslem League member Barkatali said he hoped the India Office would be abolished, giving the country its “birthright of freedom.”