Evening Post. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1935. THE DUCE HEARS NEWS

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 110, 5 November 1935, Page 8

Evening Post. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1935. THE DUCE HEARS NEWS

No doubt Signor Mussolini frequently has been compelled to go abroad to hear news concerning himself—his Press censorship makes that almost inevitable—but we doubt whether anything he has heard abroad has surprised him so much as Mr. Lloyd George's discovery that he (the Duce) has "completely fooled" the British Government. Hitherto, Italy has been presented in Italian newspapers as a victimised nation; indeed, Signor Gayda's writings, and similar writings, have shown Britain as a treacherous Power and the Duce as an exasperated man. And now, it seems, this is all a, pose—the' real victims are Sir Samuel Hoare and Mr. Baldwin, and the Machiavelli who has turned the trick is Signor Mussolini, aided by the French accomplice. This is all so sudden and mysterious that one may almost picture the Duce telegraphing to the Welsh Wizard for further particulars. If, by chance, however, they also know in Rome that a General Election is proceeding in Great Britain, Signor Mussolini may on second thoughts stay his hand. After all, why should he apply to - "— ~;gner for essential information .. .(ing his own business? Is he not likely to be as fully informed as anyone else.concerning the extent, and the success, of his own capacity to fool nations, especially when they line up fifty at a time to stop his supplies? No, on second thoughts, Signor Mussolini will not probe Mr, Lloyd George's discovery. Left alone, it may prove to be a useful anti-Baldwin bomb in the British election campaign. Fiddle with it, and it may explode in the wrong direction. .

Herein is exemplified the importance of labelling goods for home consumption. Another Lloyd George statement is that "British prestige is hopelessly impaired." It was not impaired in September, and it will not be impaired in December, but November is a very disturbed month, both in Britain and New Zealand. It is exceedingly important to Mr. Lloyd George that prestige in November should be at a low ebb; also, in the domestic sphere, that the capacity of a Government to abolish unemployment by laws and loans should shine out crystal clear. He rediscovers at this very moment that the money spent on dole should have been spent in "useful work." In the United States, after years of spending on a colossal scale, prominent Government administrators have just split on this same problem of i "useful work" as against mere relief. Even with 4000 million dollars to spend the U.S. Administration is afraid to list too many "permanent constructive works" because the material cost leaves too little for labour, and the relief job idea now comes in for the bulk of the money. So there is no example of Lloyd Georgian perfection there! But November election heroics in Britain have nothing to do with cold facts in America. If the British National Government itself is showing a very unconservative willingness to give daring financial help to big road and railway schemes—Ministers themselves being not untouched by the November fever—well, Mr. Lloyd George will better all that by askingwhy the whole 460 millions of dole, money spent since 1931 did' not go in "useful work." That, he calculates, will be a poser for them. And it is. It is also a poser for every Government that, within reasonable revenue limits, has weighed the respective merits of the big capital work and the less useful, wagecreating relief job. By the time Mr. Lloyd George has finished telling the electors what poor spenders Signor'Mussolini's dupes are, Mr. Neville Chamberlain will have talked some big figures, but of course nothing like the figures Mr. Lloyd George got used to in War time. Slill, a hundred millions for roads in five years made a good text for the latest Chamberlain broadcast.

Mr. Lloyd George lias featured the Council of Action with its reputable personnel. The name is not new. About twelve years ago militant unions in New South Wales formed a Council of Action; it did not live up to its title, and soon died, its lethargy having become a butt of stage jokes. But it did propose to act with its own member forces. Mr. Lloyd George's Council of Action really proposes action by other people; it simply draws up a programme'and seeks to pass that programme on to the members of the new Parliament by a process of pledging candidates. Possibly anypledging organisation can claim to be a Council of Action, since it does act; and as the future activities of this Council are undisclosed, and may become indeed of wide scope, the title may pass. But what is the actual line of action by which' the "Peace and Reconstruction" programme endorsed by the Council is to be implemented? By "inter-parly action," which means that the Government of the day is expected to be under the influence of other than its party followers. The evils of partyism are notorious, but how

often in Parliamentary history have difficult and opposed Bills — measures of first importance—been fougl.t through Parliament by inlcrparty fiat? When Mr. Lloyd George held ihe Prime Ministership in those post-War years which had been soleirnly dedicated to "Peace and Reconstruction" — construclionless years that laughed away the promises of 1918—what would he have said if another Welsh Wizard had organised a Council of Action, a programme of principles, and an inter-party pledge?- Why must a statesman go into Opposition to make these discoveries? Where were the principles of the present stormy petrel of politics when he commanded the ship? Labour criticism has raised another question. What degrees of armaments do the obligations of the League of Nations legitimately impose on member Powers, great and small? And does the present state of Europe and the.world warrant a higher degree of armaments now than would be required later if. the League—winning success in this crisis—were to win back to its fold the absentees? These questions seem to lie at the root of the Labour criticism of the Government's armaments proposals. The discussion so far has proceeded mostly in the dark. No one seems to know what degree of armament the League situation requires, or will require, and very few people know exactly what the Government proposes. Mr. Herbert Morrison (Labour), in trying to find out by asking a "plain question." took the first practical step. Meanwhile Major Attlee charges, and Mr. Baldwin denies, that armaments (unknown) in excess of the requirements (also unknown) are contemplated. .Between the contradictory criticisms that Britain is under-armed and over-armed, that the British Government is Signor Mussolini's dupe 'and also his oppressor, and that it is spending too much and too little, the National Cabinet plods cheerfully along, in an unmistakable atmosphere of electioneering. And, whatever the British elector may be thinking, there is not one League of Nations delegate who does not realise that when Mr. Baldwin goes to the polls, he and the League march ' or fall together.