Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1929. INTO THE LIMELIGHT

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 51, 4 March 1929, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1929. INTO THE LIMELIGHT

When he chose St. David's Day for the opening of his General Election campaign, Mr. Lloyd George gave an inkling of the spirit in which he proposed to lead the Liberal forces. The Celtic fire which has been his distinguishing trait was to be matched against the calmness and serenity of Worcester and the painstaking methods of Birmingham. The General Election is a fight with unknown forces. In every General Election it is the uncertain margin of votes which decides the issue. The Liberals may remain staunchly Liberal and the Conservatives obstinately Conservative, while Labour tries to win adherents from both, camps; but it is the voters on the fringes of all parties—who support them, but arc not of them—who ultimately choose the Government. This year this margin of uncertainty will be greatly increased by the accession of newlyenfranchised women voters. "The Flapper Vote" is what is puzzling the politician. It. may go the way of the average vote of the previously voting classes, and be divided between Conservative, Liberal, and Labour in the same proportions; but the possibility that it may not is causing the leaders some concern.The Conservative policy can have little appeal for such a. vote. In that policy there is nothing spectacular, nor is it presented in a spectacular way. It is a solid policy of safeguarding, de-rating, and local government reform. To the theoretical economist it must make a decided appeal as the greatest effort in a generation to solve an outstanding social and economic problem. It has been presented and guided through Parliament with all the painstaking thoroughness of which Mr. Neville Chamberlain is capable; but it is doubtful now if it is understood. Even for the business man the seri-ous-minded sections of the Press have deemed it necessary to publish special explanatory articles.. What likelihood is there, then, that the foundations of this policy will be understood- and its effect appreciated by the mass of the people? Are they not more likely to give heed to the superficial criticism of some of the opponents—that the aid to industry will be shared by wealthy brewers and tobacco-manufacturers, and that the benefits, such as they are, of derating will not be immediate?

Whatever opinion may be held of Mr. Lloyd George's limitations, it cannot 1 be denied that his talents may be turned to advantage in improving this shining hour. He may not be a match for Mr. Neville Chamberlain in .working out a policy of local government reform which omits no intricate detail; he may be less able than 'Mr. Winston Churchill in carrying through a daring financial effort with brilliant success; but he can be relied upon to give the people something that they will understand. It will be something that will entertain them and, possibly, convince many. It may not be sound, but it is certain to be spectacular. The St. David's Day speech does not furnish us with the details. The brief summary cabled does not even tell us what is to be the headline of the Liberal election poster. Ruthless reduction of expenditure and vigorous disarmament, extending even to postponement of the Singapore base, are what might be expected. The' removal of trade barriers at home and abroad is vague. It may be a counter-blast to safeguarding; but the barriers to trade abroad do not come within the safeguarding policy. Unless Mr. Lloyd George has his mind on a new recognition of Russia it is difficult to see where Government action can in any way stimulate foreign trade by the mere removal of obstacles.

But none of these items, we may be sure, is the spectacular plan which is to capture the public imagination. That plan has yet to be revealed. The Liberals, said Mr. Lloyd George, were ready with a scheme which would bring unemployment to normal without adding a penny to taxation. What is this scheme to be?' The Lloyd George land policy could scarcely be placed under such a heading. In any case, that policy is almost four years old, and its central features (State buying out of the landlords and a sort of usehold tenure) are not calculated to bring a big turn-over of votes from the industrial areas. We must wait, then, to learn the particulars of the plan. When Mr. Lloyd George was fighting the old guard of Liberalism a sober critic commented that the Coalition had been intent on a policy that would keep it intact—Mr. Lloyd George had desired something to attract the public. His doubt whether his old colleagues would see this necessity had been at the root of his desire for assurances on polipy in return for the key to the war chest. Now his personal fund is to finance a full line of Liberal candidates, 410 of whom he addressed on St. David's Day. He will send them out with money in their, purse, but that money will not be wasted on an unattractive message. The hint of a daring promise has already been given. We know from our own recent experience that elections are not to be won by plain accounts of steady unspectacular service. The public prefer "This is what I will do for you" to "This is what I have done." Will Mr. Lloyd George's spectacular promises be substantial enough to attract and hold the votes which demand a more rapid advance than Conservatism has given?