Evening Post. MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1929. INSURANCE AGAINST EXTREMISM

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 139, 9 December 1929, Page 10

Evening Post. MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1929. INSURANCE AGAINST EXTREMISM

A cable message to-day says "'it is reliably stated" that a rapproche-| merit is being attempted between the Labourites and the Liberals, and may result in an informal understanding insuring a comparatively long tenure of office for the Labour Government. There has been an informal consultation between Mr. Mac Donald, Sir Herbert Samuel, and Sir John Simon. Liberal newspapers are significantly sympathetic, and events in the House of Commons, notably the Liberal intervention in the Cabinet's Insurance Bill dilemma, have given colour to the statements. A rapprochement would mean "that Mr. Mac Donald will be able to snap his fingers at the Maxton-Kirkwood cave's revolt." This revolt has threatened the Government seriously. At one stage, when Miss Bondfield moved the closure, the Ministry's defeat was averted only by the abstention of the Liberals from voting. The Clydesiders walked into the same lobby, as the Conservatives, and the closure was carried only by 209 votes top 196. On amendments from the Labour back-benches the Government has had. narrower escapes. Liberal and Conservative abstentions have alone saved the situation. The most threatening situation arose on Thursday evening, when Miss Bondfield, after hurried consultation with the Attorney-General, withdrew the "genuinely seeking work" sub-clause for redrafting. Subsequently Mr. Snowden met the party and quelled, or at least calmed, dissension -by pointing out that it would be adverse to the Exchequer if die liberalising amendments were pressed. As it is, the liberalising proposals will cost some £12,500,000, and what Mr. Snowden has refused to accept are proposals costing some £11,500,000 more. In such circumstances as these, it is not surprising that there should be rumours of a formal LiberalLabour understanding to save the Government from the thunder on the Left. The Liberals would be justified in demanding that they should have some information of the Government's intentions if they are to act as a buffer between extremists and the Cabinet. The threat to the Cabinet is grave, because it is upon an issue in which the action of.the impossible Left may easily win support from the sober body of- the Labour movement. Miss Margaret Bondfield, as Minister of Labour, is endeavouring to remove the hardships and grievances associated with the unemployment insurance system; but she is displaying a sense of responsibility and is resisting with firmness the demand for the abolition of all safeguards. This is difficult, for she must convince the trade union section of the Labour movement (representing 75 per cent, of the party strength) that the tests which are to be retained and the limitation of benefits are essential. In theory the trade unionists- may agree with her, but in practice they find it difficult to vote down the Clydeside proposals to add a shilling here and there to the benefits. It is not on Miss Bondfield's firmness, however, that the issue turns. Behind her is Mr. Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer, determined to follow the lines of his Sheffield speech. Mr. Snowden declared at Sheffield that the Exchequer had been living beyond its means, and -he wished this to cease. Anxiety might tempt the Government towards measures which were mere expedients, and would not touch the fundamental causes of unemployment, but these, .while affording temporary relief, were bound in the end to aggravate the evil. From the speech it was clear that Mr. Snowden would seek, not to tax industry more, but to make its burdens as light as possible, and that he looked to the recovery of industry more than toj Government action for the cure of unemployment. In such a policy as this he cannot hope for any support from the Left wing of Labour. It is a denial of their nationalisation hopes. Left-wing activity must become more marked as the policy is developed. Then what is to save Labour? The rapprochement rumours suggest that the Liberals are willing to save the Chancellor if he will only admit that he is being saved. Possibly Mr. Snowden would be willing to make such an admission. There is no insuperable objection to his accepting Liberal aid, for Mr. Snowden and the advanced Liberals have much in common. When all is said (writes Herbert Sidcbotham in "T.P.'s Weekly," recently) Snowden is the old Manchester school in politics, with a thin veneer of Socialism; not that his Socialism is insincere, but it is a thin intellectual covering and is not worn next to the skin. Scratcli a Russian and you and a Tartar. Scratch Mr. Snowden's Socialism and you find all the characteristics of the old Manchester school still there. Ita gospel of work, its hatred of self-indulgence, its Free Trade conviction, aud all the ideas that commonly go with Free Trade, its distrist of sentiment, its passion for peace, its destructive Why-why Radicalism—all these things are stronger motives in Mr. Snoivdou's polities than his Socialism. Mr. Snowden is a power in the Labour Party; but he is not the whole

of the parly. That must be remembered in considering how far Labour can meet the Liberals. Again, there is Mr. Lloyd George. His Liberalism is not of the Manchester or any other school—it is Lloyd Georgian. Mr. Lloyd George is still the master tactician of the Liberals, and if he consents to save Labour, it will be because he thinks it to his advantage to do so. With Sir John Simon and Sir. Herbert Samuel a consultative understanding might be anranged, but the "stability" which is sought in such a measure would scarcely be sure if Mr. Lloyd George were left out of the reckoning. The General Election showed him lacking in the power lo build up a constructive Liberalism; but he is still powerful enough to destroy what is done without his full approval.