THE CONFIDENCE VOTE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24828, 30 January 1942, Page 4

THE CONFIDENCE VOTE

The device which Mr Churchill has employed this week in demanding in the. House of Commons a vote of confidence in the Government is not one that will be generally commended. There is no question of the confidence that is reposed in the Prime Minister as the national leader in this time of exceptional crisis. It was by virtually universal acclaim that he was called upon to direct the policy of the country and to express the feelings of its people in circumstances in which the in- j fluence of a virile personality at the head of affairs through whom the voice of a united people might fittingly and authoritatively be heard was imperatively needed. Mr Churchill personifies the nation in a sense in which no one has personified it in the past. " Rarely in history," it has been said, " have the man and the hour been so perfectly matched to each other. Rarely have leader and led understood one another so thoroughly." As has been said in the course of the debate in the House of Commons, Mr Churchill's position is unchallenged, but the fact has not escaped criticism that he has used the popular recognition of his own peculiar genius for leadership of a nation that is at war as a cloak for the protection of members of his Government who do not enjoy the same measure of confidence as is shown in him and •indeed, in a few instances, are regarded in many quarters as unfitted for the offices they hold. "If Mr Churchill is satisfied with his team," one. Conservative member of the House declared, "he is the only person in the country who is satisfied." It is impossible to look upon this as an isolated expression of opinion that is condemnatory of Mr Churchill's choice of his colleagues, for there are at least three or four Ministers in important positions against whom the shafts of criticism have been directed for months past. And the belief that, as has been complained,

Mr Churchill has overloaded himself with duties has given point to the charge that he has made mistakes in the selection of some of those who are included, even in important posts, in his Government. While the House is, as one member put it, "tremendously proud of Mr Churchill," the conviction seems to be widely entertained that it would be fortunate if he could see his way to choose Ministers who would give him greater assistance than he is now receiving and if his burden were lightened by a devolution of some of his responsibilities. Loyalty to one's colleagues is generally admirable. It may be carried to an extreme if it is bestowed indiscriminately and without due regard to the individual qualities of these colleagues.