The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1942. BRITISH CABINET CRITICISM

Timaru Herald, Volume CLI, Issue 22202, 20 February 1942, Page 4

The Timaru Herald FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1942. BRITISH CABINET CRITICISM

NOT all the eloquence of Mr Churchill has been able to stein the criticism of his Cabinet- in fact, the last few days have seen this criticism greatly increase in force and volubility. Strangely enough it is not so much the fall of Singapore as the escape of the German battleships from Brest Harbour that has aroused so much anger among the British people. For some weeks now the public mind had been more or less prepared for the loss of Singapore. But the escape of these battleships, and even more so, the fact that they were able to sail up the Channel unobserved for some hours, was something which shocked and amazed even the most easy-going Englishman. This was a tragedy too uncomfortably close to England’s own shores for the British public not to express some concern. In his appeal to allay criticism of the British Administration, Mr Churchill pointed out that “The Russian people had stood together, without bickering among themselves or losing faith in their leaders, in their darkest hour.” But this analogy with the Russian Empire breaks down when we remember that Russia has never pretended to be a democracy, and one does not have to penetrate far into Russian history to sec how effectively Russia can deal with both inefficient leaders and an over-zealous critic of the administration. So long as Britain wishes to remain a democracy then its government must be willing to accept a degree of criticism, for the right to criticise the existing Government is the very essence of democracy. Whenever this right is taken from a people then democracy in that country has ceased to exist. More than to any other single factor it is to the personal genius of Mr Churchill that the old political alignments in the House of Commons have ceased, to have any real meaning. But if Mr Churchill has been able to “put party politics into cold storage for the duration of the war, he has not been so successful in silencing criticism from individual members who refuse to subscribe to any party allegiance. For many years Mr Churchill himself preferred to “plough a lonely furrow’’ in the House, and now Sir Stafford Cripps, refusing to accept the allurements of vice-regal splendour after his success as British Ambassador to Moscow, has declared his future policy as follows: “I do not propose to make things difficult for the Government by merely becoming a critic. But I will not be afraid of what should be said.” Almost immediately after Sir Stafford s announcement came the news that Mr L. Hore-Belisha, a former Secretary of State for W'ar, Mr E. Granville and Sir Henry Morris-Jones had resigned from the Liberal National Party in order to take an independent critical attitude to the Government. Their joint letter of resignation stated “For some time we have been convinced that something more than the present policy of the Government is necessary to win the war.” The deflection of these prominent Parliamentarians from party alignment means that, unless more attention is given to their demands, then, notwithstanding Mr Churchill’s expressed wish, criticism of his Cabinet will increase rather than otherwise.

It has been emphasised that this growing criticism is not levelled against the leadership of Mr Churchill, and Earl Winterton summed up this general criticism when he said that he could not accept the line that all that happened was inevitable, and if they questioned the inevitability of events they' were showing panic. What he wanted was a “grand inquest.” There are a great many people in Britain whose whole attitude to the wails coloured —or, rather, bleached—by the conviction that “the right will triumph in the end,” says the Daily Herald. Even if justice turns a blind eye to us throughout our lifetime we shall be rewarded in the Kingdom of Heaven. But is this a philosophy worthy of our convictions and abilities? Is this talk of “triumph in the end,” of “the certainty of ultimate victory,” creditable to us who are—remember—not merely the defenders of democracy, but the challengers of dictatorship? What about “God helps those who help themselves?” We must get rid of the belief that, because our cause is good, fortune will be compelled by the rules of the game to smile upon our banners. We must not be content with hopes of victory “ultimately,” “in the long run," “in the end.” We must pursue a positive policy of striving for victory at the earliest possible hour, of ending the misery of mankind without a second's avoidable delay. * * * * Nazism, as we have often insisted in the effort to dispel complacency and to stimulate effort, is only the new name for militarism, says the Sunday Times. This war is simply the continuation of the last. The Kaiser's General Staff worked on exactly the same formulae as the present German General Staff. (There is no such thing as a Nazi C—ieral Staff, any more than there has ever been a Nazi ship or aeroplane). Always France and Russia were to be conquered first, then Britain, and then the whole world. The old policy is being executed before our eyes. • * • • Unless we succeed not only in defeating Germany but in exorcising the spirit by which she is at present possessed, we cannot hope for anything better than a temporary truce, writes Viscount Cecil in the Contemporary Review. A great missionary effort is needed first to convert Britain’s own official classes and make them realise that peace can be established; but only if we are in earnest about it. Beyond that task lies the far more difficult undertaking of converting Germany, a purpose that will require prolonged effort and readiness for all necessary sacrifice. In the meantime Germany must be disarmed.