Sodalists Have “Chosen To Split Britain”

Greymouth Evening Star, 29 September 1950, Page 3

Sodalists Have “Chosen To Split Britain”

LONDON, September 27.—“ What is very shocking is not that the Labour Government are doing what they thing wise to do, but that they think it wise to do something to which such a very large proportion of the people—almost certainly a majority—very strongly object, at a time when harmony is unusually desirable,” says the Economist, commenting on the Government's decision to put into effect the act nationalising iron, and steel. “What really disturbs the onlooker is not any violence that the Ministers are doing either to the national economy or to the constitution, but the insight that they have given into the state of their own minds and the sort of things they deem important.

“We are apparently . governed by men whose scale of values is very seriously warped—and that, at any time and in any country, and to men of any party, must always be an alarming discovery. “Mr Attlee was obviously stung a few weeks ago by Mr Churchill’s charge that he was sullenly resolved to lead less than half the nation; but he has now himself provided proof. The Government, which is in the course of appealing to the public to make sacrifices in the common cause, has given half the nation the best possible excuse for non-co-operation and passive resistance. Duty Of Citizens

“If there were any way out of the very dangerous impasse into which British politics have degenerated, then clearly it would be the duty of all patriotic citizens to ensure it. But the tragedy is that none of the obvious remedies seems at all likely to be effective.

“A National Government or a coalition is out of the question;the Labour Party will not hear of it. Even if they would formally agree to sit in a Coalition Government, very little purpose would be served so long as they are in their present mood of refusing to meet anybody half-way.

“Many people believe that the waycut of the mess is by another General Election. An election campaign by itself merely sharpens party controversies and silences any traces Oi harmony there may be. “It would be worth paying this price only if there were a real prospect that an election would produce a substantial difference in the state of affairs. But would it? Is it at all likely that the Labour Party would improve on its poll of 1945, when it was only 47 per cent of the total?

“If, without a majority in the country the accidents of the poll gave the Labour Party a working majority in Parliament, is there any reason to believe that it would stop dividing the country by using legal power without moral authority? Clear Majority

“It it likely that the Conservative Party would poll a clear majority of the electorate? Or that they could govern with authority if they had just such a slim and accidental Parliamentary majority as Mr Attlee has now? “If any of these questions can be answered with an honest affirmative, then the sooner an election is held- the better. But if not, then the present poisonous paralysis seems fated to continue, horrible though that prospect is. “Mr Attlee could have made it otherwise. Even three weeks ago, and even on his tiny majority, he could have built up a policy of national leadership to which the people would have-responded—as in not dissimilar circumstances the American people have responded to Mr Truman. He has chosen not to do so. What a heavy responsibility he bears.” .