Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1935. LABOUR'S CHEQUE BLANK

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 111, 6 November 1935, Page 8

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1935. LABOUR'S CHEQUE BLANK

No one could question the enthusiasm of the election meeting addressed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Town Hall last ! night. Whatever differences and difficulties there may be in store for the Labour Party its members and followers are at present united for the attainment of one great aim—the capture of power. They are stimulated with the hope of victory and, their leaders, understanding well the working of mass psychology, hope to use this enthusiasm to carry waverers with them to the poll. Economic difficulties, however, are not to be overcome by cheers and unanimous resolutions, though we do not deny the effect of these demonstrations in raising the spirits of those who cheer, and, perhaps, keeping up their t confidence. If the Labour Party ever attains office it will find that it cannot go "marching through Georgia" with a chorus of "Hurrah! Hurrah! We'll bring the Jubilee." It will have to pause in its cheering and consider what practical ways, means, and plans it proposes for bringing the Jubilee which it has promised so fully and freely to trusting voters.

Considered as a demonstration of able oratorical leadership and party enthusiasm Mr. Savage's meeting was an unbounded success. Considered as proof of the Labour Party's readiness and capacity to grapple successfully with the economic problems of the day it was as blank as the cheque. which Mr. Savage now asks the people to sign. Mr. Savage claimed that the real issue in the election is: "Shall private banking corporations continue to control currency and credit or shall the State assume control." We cannot approve this way of stating the issue, as it does not make it clear that private banking corporations and. the semi-State Reserve Bank are even now subject to definite statutory safeguards. But, if Mr. Savage's statement of the issue be accepted, then the Labour leader is certainly under an imperative obligation to show how State control will operate. He failed utterly and completely last night to give any such information. He did not even attempt to give it. Instead he sought to cover up his unwillingness or inability to give this most essential explanation with a jibe at the Coalition Government's "blank cheque" policy in 1931. Electors, we hope, will note the lesson. They gave a blank cheque to the Coalition in 1931 relying largely upon the Government's known previous rejection of inflationary and compulsory interest-reduction devices (which Labour advocated), and upon the sagacity and experience of Mr. Downie Stewart as Minister of Finance. The cheque was filled in by a Government from which Mr. Stewart had resigned and which accepted, though in different form, the methods which voters had disapproved in their disapproval of Labour. Had the electors foreseen what was to happen, we are convinced that they would have made their protest heard.

They have not now the excuse that they are unaware of what is proposed. Mr. Savage has said plainly that the Labour Party will "assume control of public credit and establish a national credit authority whose duty it will be to provide a money service sufficient to give effect to the will of Parliament." Mr. Nash has said that the Reserve Bank will be the Government credit authority, "which would stand the deficit between world prices and guaranteed prices. The excess in boom years would create a reserve fund." We have here a hint that success is dependent on boom years; but we have no suggestion of what other deficits the State Reserve Bank will be asked to stand. Nor have we any explanation whatever of how the national credit authority will work. Indeed, we may doubt if Mr. Savage knows himself. He said last night that "intelligent control and use of currency and credit" "would not necessarily involve the Dominion in the taking over of the Associated Banks." Surely this is a point on which there should be no evasiveness or ambiguity. If there is any possibility of taking over the trading banks—a transaction of the utmost importance to the public who must foot the bill and to the proprietors of the banks— not only should that intention be clearly stated but the terms of the | purchase and the powers under which it is to be made should be made known now. But all that Mr. Savage had to say on this or other issues of the greatest moment Avas:

When Labour rules it will be the duty of the Law Drafting Office and Treasury, just as it is now, to express in the necessary legislation the financial policy of the Government.

How would the instructions be given to the Law Drafting Office and the Treasury? In the same vague terms as Mr. Savage explains the policy t.o the electors, leaving the Treasury and the Law Drafting Office to decide whether the trading banks should be taken over and hoiv? ]f so, then Labour is committed to the use of bureaucratic methods far exceeding any use which has been criticised by Labour in the past.

This refusal or inability to'supply information cannot he glossed over by a jocular reference. "1 don't know whether they expect me to say," said Mr. Savage, "whether the five-

pound notes should be red or green." What the electors do expect, and have a right to expect, is that Mr. Savage should say whether the policy is to be red and the voters are expected to be green. Labour is united now—in Opposition, Were the party to attain office there would be grave differences of interpretation of a policy which is worded so loosely as to bear any meaning. Some members, we are prepared to believe, would wish to proceed cautiously, and, finding that they could not carry out all that they had promised, they would not precipitate disaster by persisting in a vain and ruinous attempt. They would disappoint their supporters' instead of dragging them to disaster. But there are others' who would not perceive the inevitable consequences of an attempt to put the policy into effect. They -would insist upon dangerous and business-wrecking experiments. Which section of a Labour Government would be in control—the cautious section which would bring only disappointment, or the impulsive red clement which would rush headlong to disaster and disappointment, too? This question cannot be answered now. And because it cannot be answered it is urgently necessary that the voters should not endorse a vague and woolly policy which is to be definitely shaped by moderate or red Labour or the Law Drafting Office and the Treasury. Labour criticises the Coalition blank cheque, but Labour itself presents a cheque blank that shows neither the amount, the bank by which it is payable, nor the person to whom payment is lo be made. All that is shown is the dotted line for the voters to sign.