The Daily News WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1931. DEFENDING A CLASS.

Taranaki Daily News, 26 August 1931, Page 8

The Daily News WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 26, 1931. DEFENDING A CLASS.

By far the most interesting explanation of the downfall of the Labour Government in Great Britain is that attributed to a Trade Union Congress leader. “This Government,’’ he is reported to have said, “was elected by a class to defend a class, and at the first big test it runs to make terms with other parties.” It may be assumed at once that this particular Labour leader knows nothing of the responsibilities of Ministerial office, and probably little more of the very serious nature of the : financial crisis to be faced by those to whom such responsibility was entrusted. He is, no doubt, an admirable leader in Labour circles, for he is so “class conscious” as to believe that a Labour Government’s business is, not to conduct the affairs of the nation in the national interest, but to disregard all other considerations in its desire to favour Labour. Such an attitude would be, of course, the very antithesis of the democratic spirit and method which Labour speakers are so fond of belauding, for if democracy means anything it means a square deal for everyone. Actually the most democratic action the MacDonald Labour Government ever took was to call the other parties into consultation, for that was the first step towards an attempt to distribute evenly throughout the nation the financial burden imposed upon the Mother Country—the outcome in part of external influences, but also due in some degree to the inequitable policy pursued by Labour during the past two years. The difficulties to be overcome by the new British Government in balancing the Budget have been very seriously accentuated by the prodigal expenditure of the past two years on social services and the eagerness of the Labour Ministers to make new commitments without attempting to find means of meeting them. It is supposed that one of the causes of the Government’s collapse wag a division of opinion regarding the dole, Conservatives and Liberals alike insisting on reduction of the benefits, while a number of the Ministers absolutely refused to give way on that point. Labour was calmly borrowing for the unemployment fund at the rate of ovex* £1,000,000 a week, the idea apparently being that so long as moneys was obtainable the future could be left to care for itself. Pensions and other payments also have been lavish under the Labour regime. It is all part and parcel of the perverted belief held in Labour circles that every-man has a right to look to “the country” fox* employment at sufficient wages or sustenance on a similar scale. In that belief Laboui’ has substituted the dole system fox* the very fine Poox- Law, and thus self-respect and initiative are being “weakened, and the cost of government is mounting. True it is that the troubles - which Mr. MacDonald and his colleagues found themselves unable to meet unaided were, in part, brought upon the country by theix* own recklessness ixx trying to “defend a class.” Had they been able to disabuse their minds of the influence of the Trade Union Congress they might still be in office. Undex* the circumstances it is rathex* surprising on first thoughts that Mr. MacDonald is to lead the new Government and to have among his Ministers a certain number of his Labour colleagues. To “run to make terms ; witlx thq othex* parties,” as the Trade Union Congress spokes-

man put it, was natural enough; the Government was fully entitled to seek their help in formulating a plan of action. But to bring into a new Cabinet under the Laboui’ Prime Minister the leading men of the other parties—men experienced in the work of national administration—is a very different matter. The possibility of a Coalition Government of Conservatives and Liberals, far apart though they have been in recent times, was quite within the bounds of contemplation, but a day ox* two ago the conception of, say, Mr. Baldwin and Sir Herbert Samuel as Ministers in a MacDonald Cabinet would have placed a very severe strain upon the imagination. That is not to say, of course, that Mr. MacDonald and a number of his supporters are not men of marked ability, but rather that the differences in viewpoint separating the Labour leadex* and the head of the Conservative Party appeared to be irreconcilable. The fact that it is possible for them to unite indicates the gravity of the financial crisis which Britain has to face. And it is more than probable that it was the influence of the King that brought them together. The Crown itself is still a power in Britain because the King has ‘ long experience and sound commonsense, and because he knows when to act. His part in the affairs of the kingdom will be assessed in history ; for the present it is only possible to assume that it is as the result of his tactful handling of a delicate situation that Mr. MacDonald has been persuaded to make a fresh effort and the other Headers that their duty is to co-operate. They are tackling a tremendous task,' but .with that unity of purpose which is the first essential to success.