ACTION OR DEBATE?

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 22, 27 January 1931, Page 8

ACTION OR DEBATE?

Having heard the Prime Minister's account of his work in England, the country is now waiting more or less patiently for his answer to its question: "What will you do here?" There are many rumours of his intentions; but few of them can be wellfounded, for obviously Mr. Forbes would not resolve upon a definite course Without consultation with his colleagues: There should, however, be little occasion for delay once that consultation has been held. Before the Prime Minister returned his colleagues set on foot various investigations so that there need be no waste of time in seeking data. Presumably the Economy Committee and other advisory bodies are ready with proposals which the Government may proceed at once to consider. The need of the moment is for a definite and decisive lead. The lorfger the Government hesitates to give this lead the harder will its task become. We may hold off in the hope that primary produce markets will recover, and that the Unemployment Board in some miraculous way will find work for the workless thousands; but in the end there will be no alternative but the redistribution of the burden of lower prices. The Leader of the Labour Party is loudly demanding an early session of Parliament, and it is hinted that the Prime Minister is inclined to take this course. But the people who expect miracles to follow,the assembling of Parliament are surely deluding themselves. An early session may be good or bad. It will most certainly be bad if it is taken as a way of escape frpm responsibility.1 If Parliament' is summoned with no fixed purpose it will produce nothing —except want-of-confidence motions and a month or so of aimless and disturbing debate. On the other hand, if the Government prepares its plans and summons Parliament to give authority for their operation something may be achieved. The onus wou)d then be upon the Opposition parties to propose better alternatives if they rejected the Government's plans. But Parliament without a purpose is worse than useless. It would assure determined administration of a sound policy if Parliament could be summoned with a strong Government on the Treasury Benches. The weakness and vacillation now observable may be traced to fear of the consequences. All parties have their eyes on the fateful month of November, and each is considering how the actions of February to October will be viewed then. To overcome, this hesitation there must be a party truee —an agreement to share the responsibility for the necessary but distasteful actions that must be taken. Labour will not be a parly to such a truce. Whatever may be done Labour will seek to score over

the other parties. For proof of this we have but to consider last session. To pacify Labour the Government included the sustenance provision in the Unemployment Bill. It received no thanks. Labour condemned the Bill in unmeasured terms—just to prove to the voters how much more generous with their money a Labour Government would have been. The same course will be followed in the coming session. Whatever is proposed by the Government or Reform, unless it follows the impossible courses set by Labour, will be condemned. But there is no reason why the fear of election consequences should not be removed as between the two nonLabour parties. If they are sincere in their desire to save the country they can surely resolve to share the responsibility. ,j