AFTER THREE YEARS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22368, 15 September 1934, Page 3

AFTER THREE YEARS

BRITISH GOVERNMENT / _____ POSITION OF COUNTRY TO-DAY THE NEXT ELECTION, The third year of a Parliament is traditionally in this country the dangerous age for Governments, writes Viscount Cranborne, M.P., in the Quarterly Review. During the first year they are carried high on the flood tide of victory. They come into power as the result of a strong reaction of public feeling against the Administration which preceded them. They can do practically what they like. By the second year, the issues of the general election are beginning to fade from the memory of the voters. Signs of irritation are beginning to show themselves. Unpopular things have inevitably been done. Yet the impetus, which brought the Government in, still carries it through. But by the third year _ the tide has slackened. It is even beginning to ebb. Ministers have been put into power to carry out some mandate. Either they have failed, in which case they are rightly discredited, or they have succeeded, in which case their mandate is exhausted.

The public begin to ask what they are going to do next. It is of no use for them to point to what has been achieved once'it has been assimilated into the social and economic life of the nation. It cannot be distinguished from what has been done by other Governments in the past, adds Viscount Cranborne. PARABLE OF THE ELECTOR.

Their position may be compared to that of a man who carries, with great effort, a bucket of water and pours it into a pool and then calls his employer and says; “ Look, I have put a bucketful into that pool; the level is higher than ever before,” only to get the discouraging reply: I cannot distinguish between your bucketful and all the others that, have been put in; and anyhow, I wanted not merely a pool, but a lily pool. When are you going to put in the lilies? ” That is the attitude of the electorate. They are never impressed by achievement. They are constantly asking for more. These persistent demands the Government generally finds it increasingly difficult to satisfy. . . After discussing the situation and, position of the Socialist and Labour Parties in opposition, Viscount Cranborne refers to foreign affairs, and says: The voter will be told that the whole blame for the present lamentable situation in Europe lies on the British Goveminent, for, it will be said, if it had taken a strong line earlier, a disarmament convention would long ago have been signed. This argument has, of course, a specious charm for the Englishman. It flatters his vanity. England, he says with unction, should lead the world. At the same time, in the present instance, it entirely ignores the realities of the situatloWhat has, in fact, held up the Disarmaraent Conference throughout the last two years? The difficulty of harmonising two conflicting demands, the demand of Germany for equality and the demand of France for security. That difficulty would still have persisted, even if by some cataclysm Great Britain had been sunk in the depths of the North Sea. No action that we, as a nation, could have taken could have entirely removed it. Our function has, indeed, been less that of a dictator than of a mediator. In our position of comparative detachment from the difficulties of Europe, we could assist in attempting to find a basis of- compromise between two conflicting opinions. We could recognise the justice of Germany s claim for more equality. We could minimise the threat to France’s security which she believed that German equality involved by offering her some quid pro quo in the form of assistance > by use in the event of a crisis. That is all we could do. HAS BEEN PURSUED. But it would be entirely wrong to describe this as the negation of a policy. It is a very definite pdicy. And it is a policy that has unswervingly been pursued. It was the motive force behind the Draft Convention of March, 1933)-, behind the British proposals of last October, behind the White Paper of January of this year, and behind all the negotiations which have flowed from that document. Unfortunately, in spite of our efforts, no basis of compromise has been found. France, in her late Note, indeed indicated that no offer of security by Great Britain could, under present circumstances, compensate her for German rearmament. In the meantime, Germany is steadily rearmingv Under these circumstances, obviously Great Britain must now reconsider her position. The time for mediation is past. This country must make up her mind how best she can safeguard her own security. The steps which the Government takes to this end will be of crucial importance in determining the attitude of the British people at the next election.

If nothing is done the Government will be attacked both from the Right and from the Left. It might have been hoped that it would be worth while making even at this late hour one last attempt to get agreement by a general restatement of our position, setting out clearly the amount of rearmament which we believe should be acceptable to Germany and the extent of the guarantees of security which we are prepared to give to France as a counterbalance.

But after M. Burthou’s speech at Geneva on May SO this seems hopeless. It is true that a formula has been found which allows the conference to continue its work. But it would be unwise to build too much on this. Unless France is willing radically to alter her present attitude, we must face the fact that there is no common ground upon which an agreement between her and Germany can he based, and sooner or later we are likely to be faced by a collapse of the conference. THE ONLY COURSE. Should that happen it looks as though our only course will be to fall back on Locarno, and provide ourselves with adequate armaments to make our intervention under' that treaty not merely effective, but conclusive. That should be a formidable check on an aggressor. But should this melancholy situation be reached, it will be essential that the Government should make clear, and continue to make clear, to the people of this country the progress of events which have led up to it. Great Britain to-day is profoundly pacific, and unless the general public are convinced that every possible step has been taken to avert the catastrophe of war, it will go hard with the Government when the election comes.

But this can be said, concludes Viscount Cranborne; The National Government stand for certain broad principles. It stands for liberty. It stands for sound economics, in the sense that it believes that a nation, like an individual, must live within its _ income. It is realist rather than academic in its outlook.

The maintenance of these principles has led to a steady improvement in our national position. But that improvement has not been achieved once and for all. It will continue only so long_ as these principles arc maintained. It is for the Government and its supporters to convince the electors, in the two years that remain, of this truth. On their success or failure will largely depend the issue of the next general election.