Leftist Pressure: Attlee’s Handling Of Crisis Challenged

Greymouth Evening Star, 12 August 1947, Page 7

Leftist Pressure: Attlee’s Handling Of Crisis Challenged

(Recd. 10.35 a.m.) LONDON, August 11. Almost all the Labour Party’s 393 members of Parliament gathered behind closed doors, in the committee room at the House of Commons today to hear the challenge to Mr Attlee’s handling of the dollar crisis—but Mr Attlee was not there for the opening of the discussion, says Reuter. Mr Attlee arrived later and with Mr Ernest .Revin and Mr Herbert Morrison, addressed the meeting, which lasted 2hrs 40mins.

It was officially stated after the meeting: “A discussion occurred on the economic situation, arising out of last week’s debate in the House of Commons. Mr Attlee and Mr Ernest Bevin replied to the discussion. There was also a discussion on the socialisation of the iron and steel industry, to which Mr Herbert Morrison replied.”

Reuter says Ministers heard plain speaking on three main criticisms. They were:—

1. The proposed smaller ration and longer working hours would not be balanced by any equivalent de-

mand on the rich. 2. The Cabinet by its silence on the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry had encouraged sug-

gestions that this strongly-demand-ed measure would be postponed. 3. The Armed forces could stand a stronger cut that the 80,000 pro-

posed. The crisis within the Labour Party continues unchecked after the meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party, says Reuter’s political correspondent. One hundred and fifty or more “Leftists,” seeking to force a decision on, steel nationalisation and the size of the armed forces, left the meeting still unsatisfied. The Government spokesmen apparently begged more time to consider both questions and asked the rank and file to avoid embarrassing the .Government by seeking premature decisions.

The bloc of Labour malcontents is the largest yet during the present Parliament.

The political correspondents o£ both the Evening News and the Evening Standard said it was significant that the official statement issued after the Labour Party meeting was couched in different terms from that issued a week before Mr Attlee s crisis statement in the Commons when the party chiefs let it be known that Mr Attlee’s statement had been promised the united support of the Labour members. • The Evening Standard adds that the fact that the three leading members of the Cabinet had to be put up to answer the critics and defend the Government’s polic’y is evidence that strong and direct dissatisfaction was expressed with the Governments programme.

The Daily Telegraph's political correspondent says the rift between the Government and the powerful group of Socialist back-benchers has widened seriously. Mr Attlee and Mr Ernest Bevin at the party meeting averted a vote on the general issue of Government leadership,, which was strongly challenged. Mr Morrison was less successful‘in dealing with the rebels against the Government’s iron and steel policy. A remarkable state of affairs was disclosed when against the wish of the Ministers the meeting divided. It is believed that the Government decision to delay nationalisation was supported by 81 members and opposed by 77, with more than 90 abstentions.

Reuter’s political correspondent says the iron and steel industry will come under complete Government control, but its assets will remain in private hands pending nationalisation “later.” This apparently compromise decision is unlikely to be followed by Cabinet resignations.

HOPES FOR EARLY RATIFICATION OF EMERGENCY BILL

LONDON, August 10. “Whether or not Parliament is adjourned on Wednesday will depend on how long the two Houses take to pass the Supplies and Service Bill,” says the Parliamentary correspondent of The Times. “The Bill is to be passed through all its remaining stages tomorrow in Ihe House of Commons and will go on Tuesday to the House of Lords for its second reading. The Government hopes that the Peers will pass the Bill through the commttee stages and give it its third reading on Wednesday, so that it may receive the Royal Assent later on Wednesday, to enable Parliament to be adjourned.” “The future of world peace and

prosperity, of world strategy and world economics, is bound up with the future of Britain.” says The Times in a leading article discussing the prospects and effects of the Supplies and Services Bill. “What is recognised abroad must be recognised with equal unanimity at Westminster this week during the debates on the Bill. Socialism is not the issue, as some speakers on both sides seemed to imply in the heat of the argument on Frnday. “For the Government to claim special powers with any aim except to save the nation would be criminal. For Government supporters to make the precipitate and arbitrary nationalisation of steel a test of confidence in this emergency would be worse than folly. For any Opposition member to contest a grant of special powers, merely because of the Government’s political complexion, would be no less culpable; this Government is far more likely to do too little than too much, and the important requirement is to see that any resounding special powers are not used to disguise inaction.”

CANADIAN TRADE: DEMAND FOR U.S. DOLLARS

OTTAWA, August 10

“A phase of Britain’s financial position, which has come as a distinct shock to Canadians, is the revelation that Canada is - demanding payment in United States dollars for part of our export to Britain,” said Mr M. J. Coldwell, national leader of the Commonwealth Co-operative Federation, in a speech. “I have no recollection of any hint to Parliament that this was being done. Such a humiliating procedure should be stopped immediately, and the United States dollars we have already accepted should be made available to Britain. “In addition, all non-essential and luxury imports from the United States should be controlled.” Vital Concern Declaring that Canada was vitally concerned with the economic rehabilitation of Britain, her best and most reliable customer, Mr Coldwell added: “For generations we have followed a policy of selling to Britain and buying in the United States. This policy is no longer possible. We must buy where we sell, and plan our import and export relationships realistically in the light of new and challenging conditions.” i “Every effort should be made to persuade the United States to release Britain from the obligations of ' non-discrimination,” says the London Economist in an article renewing its criticisms of conditions of the AmeriIcan loan agreement. I It says that if it is the disap--1 pearance of dollars that brings on the ; present British crisis, it is the condilions on which they have been lent J that make the crisis so difficult to solve. It claims that far too much stress is being laid on convertibility, and not enough on the non-discrim-ination clauses in the loan agreement, which, it declares, are wrong in principle. “Dice Loaded’!

Listing the objections to non-dis-crimination, the Economist says that in its American definition, it loads the dice unfairly against British mterests. Combined with the shortage of a major currency, non-discrimina-tion is a powerful lever for throttling international trade, instead of being a lever to increase it. “No more persuasive example ot the truth of this could be given than what is happening all over the world at the present time,” says the Economist. “One country after another, finding itself compelled to cut down its dollar spendings, is compelled by American insistence on non-discnm-jnation to cut down its purchases from all other countries as well. Because Britain and the Argentine can neither of them buy from America, they are compelled to refuse to buy from each other.”