ECONOMY CAMPAIGN.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLII, Issue 1737, 12 February 1921, Page 2

ECONOMY CAMPAIGN.

GOVERNMENT ARRAIGNED. BITTER PRESS CAMPAIGN. COALITION DUBBED WASTERS AND SPENDTHRIFTS. At various times Uriel cables have appeared relating to the virulent attacks that have been made on the financial methods and the policy of the Coalition Government of Great Britain, but they have inadequately represented the bitterness of the assault on Departmental extravagance and the commitment of the country to enormously expensive foreign adventures. ;A few extracts from newspapers to hand by the mos*t recent mail should be read with interest. While they are necessarily brief, and taken from their context are liable to be discounted as not fairly representative of the articles from which they are quoted, they can be accepted as reasonably setting forth the views of the writers and the newspapers concerned. A series of extracts is therefore appended with the heading of the articles from which they are abstracted. THE WASTERS WANT MORE. Industry is being bled white with taxes, while the departments pursue their reckless career. The indignation of the country is growing with each fresh example of waste and each fresh'defiance from the departments. It will not accept the old excuses, or the story that the money is ‘allocated’ or spent. They have abundant fields for economy, one of the most obvious of which is the system of useless and costly Labour Exchanges. The plain fact is that the public cannot afford to pay any more money. It has been to the breaking point and beyond. It is looking for relief, not for fresh burdens. —“Daily Mail.” WHAT WE SAY. i The Coalition Government deserves and requires the criticism of an organised Opposition. .Advocates of retrenchment can find no fault with Mr Asquith’s plea for economy. For a year we have denounced the wasteful prodigality of our military adventures in Russia and Mesopotamia. If the Independent Liberals support the in the ranks of the Coalition they will render a public service. Our national expenditure must be cut down, not only in foreign fields, but also in domestic affairs. We must make ends meet. Policy must govern expenditure. Ruthless thrift in every department is absolutely essential, and thrift must be supplemented by a policy of peace—peace at home as well as peace abroad. It would be well if all the economists in every part were to unite in urging the Government to set our financial house in order so that enterprise may be stimulated and business men may take heart of grace.— "Sunday Express.” MUST MR. CHAMBERLAIN GO? Economies can be assisted by the House of Commons, but if they are to be on a large scale and reasonably expeditious, they must depend on the vigour and prescience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is grave reason to fear that Mr Chamberlain is not the man for the task. He stands between the country and financial injuries which, even if we decline to use the word ruin,' may very easily result in a permanent handicap in the industrial race, and a nan in so responsible a position must have courage, initiative, and, above ill, a masterful personality. Mr Chamberlain is stubborn but not courageous: he is honest but conventional and completely lacking in bold nitiative; he is a model of courtesy md not without eloquence, but he has neither the forcefulness nor the general grasp of affairs which his office ■•equires. It is unpleasant to have to ay these things, but necessary. For what we want now is a man who can raise his office to its old predominance in state counsels. The Chancellor, too long a servant of the Departments, must now be their master. Of will to attack the spending departments, of power to enforce his will and of the statemanship which can conceive national policy as a whole and shape it in accordance with our financial needs, Mr Chamicrian has at no time given any sign. The integrity and inflexibility which in ordinary times would have made him a reputation as a Chancellor now serve only to illuminate bis limitations. One sees no hope of •eal improvement while he is in his present office. —"Scrutator” in the "Sunday Times.” A LESSON FROM GREECE. Suppose we had a general election here. Suppose the voters, sick at the vanton extravagance of the Governnent, disgusted with the rise in taxaion and local rates, furious at having to. pay for the army 170,000 strong, vhlch is still kept in the field in the Vear and Middle East, embittered bemuse prodigal official waste is ruinng industry and throwing men out if work, suddenly flung Mr Lloyd leorge and bis fellow-spendthrifts >nt of office. The Continent would bo startled, ne should wc, who knofv our own losition best, be very much surmised? Something of the kind, hough with local variations, has Just ccunjed in Greece, and that is why M. Venizolos is now an exile on the Riviera. Unless our Ministers stop quandcring at home and war-mon--ering abroad, something of the same ort will eventually happen here. — ,ovat Fraser in the “Daily Mail.” RATION THE SPENDERS. In response to Mr Bonar Law's •hallcnge in the House of Commons, Ur G. Lambert has handed in the ollowing economy resolution, upon which it Is hoped the Government •will allow a debate: — “That this House resolves that it, vll 1 not sanction expenditure for 921-2 in excess of £808,000,000, the irnount estimated as being necessary, for a normal year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on October 23, 1919.” Mr Lambert is assured of strong mpport if there, is a debate. This is the first time that a direct ittempt has been made by resolution of the House of Commons to limit expenditure in advance of the presen•atidn of the Estimates. It is a plan ilready advocated in the “Daily iail.” and accepted by many M’s.P. \s the only possible means of checkng waste. The total suggested is smaller than that estimated lately by oankers as the lowest to which the •xpenditure might be brought. Their minimum was £950,000,000. —“Daily Mail.”