WINSTON CHURCHILL UNDER FIRE

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 19, 13 April 1927, Page 1

WINSTON CHURCHILL UNDER FIRE

BUDGET ASSAILED

“JUGGLERY and DECEIT” SNOWDEN A LIVELY CRITIC SMOKERS and MOTORISTS to PAY Churchill is a luxury, and if the Conservatives considered the matter they would find that his scintillating entertainments in the House were not compensated for by his cost to the country. His first Budget was a rich man’s, his second that of a profligate bankrupt, his third a combination of both jugglery and deceit.” Thus Mr. Philip Snowden, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, assails the Budget of his successor. Users of tobacco, matches, wine, tableware, and motors are to carry the burden of the increased taxation consequent on the record deficit.

Bv Cabtc.—Press Association.—Copyright Reed. 9.50 a.m. LONDON, Tuesday. While the Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill was being condemned in the House of Commons as a financial juggler by a half-hearted Opposition, the country generally was more or less philosphically accepting the new burden of taxation which, shorn of the Chancellor’s verbiage, means that tobacco will cost a halfpenny an ounce more, foreign wines from a penny to eightpence a bottle more, matches a halfpenny a dozen boxes more, and table ware, china and pottery slightly more. Cigar manufacturers are mournful and say they might as well go out of business. Motorists as a class are one of the worst hit. The Road Fund reserve of £12,000,000 has been •ntirely transferred to the revenue account. Big motoring associations announce that they will contest this summary •xecution and declare they have sufficient material, and also that Parliamentary support is likely to be forthcoming. They are perturbed, too, at the abolition of the Transport Department. TYRE-MAKERS JUBILANT The tax on imported motor-tyres sill increase the cost one-third, at which British tyre manufacturers, who were recently forced to make a

big reduction to meet competition, are jubilant. There has been a sharp advance in their shares to-day. In the meantime two American manufacturers are hurrying on the completion of factories in England. Everybody is more or less agreed that Mr. Churchill was characteristically ingenious in meeting the disastrous deficit. Indirect taxation, though just, is bad in the long run, but not so immediately obvious as increased income tax. Any attempt in that direction would have been followed by such an outcry as might shake the Government. That is mainly why Mr. Churchill is being referred to as the modern Cinquevalli. At the opening of the Budget debate, the Right Hon. Philip Snowden said he could not withhold admiration for the audacity with which the Chancellor had met the position. Although he attributed the nation’s financial position to the coal stoppage, chief responsibility for its prolongation rested with the Government. Within the brief space between Labour’s entry into office, and the presentation of the Estimates, a considerable reduction had been effected, despite Mr. Churchill's failure to do the same. The hope of economy Sprang eternally in his breast, and no Chancellor had ever been a more ghastly failure at achieving anything. The abolition of three Ministries would involve probably a saving of i £IO,OOO annually. The Ministers would disappear, but the work of the departments would be carried on. Did anyone believe that the Estimates would not be considerably increased before the end of the year? They erred on the side of optimism. Mr. Snowden said he would be greatly surprised if there was not grave industrial dislocation following the direct invitation given by the Trades Union Bill. Apart from that, the Chancellor was certain to face the House again with a considerable deficit. In the course of three Budgets direct taxation had been relieved £50,000,000, but indirect taxation had increased to £55,000,000, thereby showing regard for those whom Mr. Churchill had described as “my hard-pressed friends, the super-taxpayers.” Mr. Churchill was a luxury, but if the Conservatives considered the matter they would find that his scintillating entertainments in the Commons were not compensated for by his cost to the country. His first Budget was a rich man’s; the second, that of a profligate bankrupt; the third, a combination of both, together with jugglery and deceit. “It is beyond me to do justice to Mr. Churchill’s genius. He’s a combination of Mark Tapley and Micawber.” The Right Hon. R. McNeill (Conservative) said that the whole expenditure under the control of the Government was £156,000,000, the remainder either for obligatory services, or arose from causes antecedent to the present Government taking office. Those who advocated a reduction of anything up to £50,000.000 should show’ where it was possible. The abolition of three departments proved that the Government was not prepared to reject any reasonable suggestions. Sir Edw’ard Iliffe (Conservative) regretted that the Overseas Trade Department was ending, after it had considerable success. It had definitely assisted in the development of trade. Sir Godfrey Collins (Labour) called tl*e Chancellor’s attention to four methods of reducing expenditure. The cost of colonial preference each year w*as £4.500.000. Why should the overburdened taxpayers assist successful producers in the Dominions. They might abolish the beet sugar subsidy, and that w’ould save another £4,000,000. Then there w'as the Empire Marketing Board. Why should £1,000,000 of the taxpayers’ money be spent to bring products overseas from the Dominions to English shores? The Dominions should compete for the English markets on equal terms with other peoples of the world.