Evening Post. MONDAY, JUNE, 23, 1930.

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 145, 23 June 1930, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, JUNE, 23, 1930.

Discussing on Friday the attitude of the two Opposition parties' to Mr. Mac Donald's request for their help in dealing with the problem of unemployment, we were compelled to assume that some essential point or points had been omitted from our reports. On the 26th May he had stated on the platform that "the Government would now welcome any amount of co-operation." On the 18th' June the question was raised in the House of Commons by Sir Austen Chamberlain with the suggestion •■'.■" L that the Prime Minister should define exactly the nature of the co-operation asked for, and tho scope of the activities in which he asked the % othcr parties to take' part. The Prime Minister's reply, as. reported, contained no reference whatever to the-point very properly raised by Sir Austen, but Mr. Lloyd George, who followed, said: I have accepted the invitation and the wbolo of the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister. , What those conditions were still remains uncertain, but our suggestion on Friday of a gap in the record was verified by a message which reached us on the same day after our article was written, though we must admit that the verification was of a. kind which we had not dared to anticipate. What this message- said was that Mr. Baldwin had declined to accept "the invitation to take part in a threeparty conference on unemployment which was made.by the Prime Minister in the House, of Commons last night and accepted by Mr. Lloyd George on behalf of the Liberals." Yet Thursday's report of the Prime Minister's speech contained no reference whatever to an invitation which was the most important thing in the whole debate. • And even now it seems necessary ■to assume another serious blunder, for Mr. Lloyd George could not possibly have .said "I have accepted the invitation" if the invitation had only been made orally a few minutes before. What probably' happened is.that an- invitation, including the conditions to which Mr. Lloyd George referred, had previously been submitted in writing to both the Opposition Leaders, that Mr. Mac Donald had confirmed it in his speech, and that Mr. Lloyd George, in his speech, confirmed the written acceptance he had previously sent It is not often that we are left to guess about so important a point. For the uncertainty that still attaches to the attitude of the Conservatives it seems fairly clear that Mr. Baldwin himself must accept the responsibility. No official statement is available, but it is understood that one of the principal reasons put forward by Mr. Baldwin for refusing Mr. Mac Donald's offer is that the Government will not consider a safeguarding policy as a remedy for unemployment. If the matter had been of slight importance, or Mr. Baldwin had been a less "straightforward and sensible man, the natural inference would have been that he had declined the invitation, but preferred to conceal his reasons. But under existing conditions we can only assume that this is another of those unaccountable blunders which during the last twelve months have combined to aggravate the effects of his party's defeat at the General Election.' The contrast between the Conservative and the Liberal Leaders on this point must be admitted to be entirely in the latter's favour. Mr. Lloyd George has accepted the Prime Minister's invitation, and has been eager to proclaim that he has done so without reserve. Even those who believe that in Mr. Lloyd George's calculations, his own interests come first,- his party's second, and the nation's a bad third, will surely admit1 that on this occasion he has done the right thing for the nation just as obviously as for the other two parties. Mr. Baldwin, on the other hand, is probably regarded even by a majority of his opponents as the most disinterested statesman in England, and he i§ at least as well able as any to take a broad view of things from the standpoint of the nation and the Empire. Yet on this issue he seems to us not merely to have committed a serious tactical blunder from . the party standpoint, but to have blundered more grossly in missing v the chance of rendering the nation and the Empire a unique service. The pooling of the statesmanship of all the parties would.have given a far better chance for the dispassionate and effective treatment of an evil which is eating into the very vitals of the nation than any one party or any two parties could possibly provide. Why has one of the most broadminded and unselfish of statesmen missed the chance? and why in missing it has he not displaced the very strong presumption that his action was bound to create against him in the mind of every detached observer by slating his reasons in the clearest and strongest possible manner? What is "understood" to be one of Mr. Baldwin's principal reasons confirms the conjecture which we made

last week. The Government's refusal to consider safeguarding as a remedy for unemployment is the only reason which, in the absence of any official statement, is confidently regarded as having influenced the decision. Mr. Snowden and Mr. Lloyd George notwithstanding, it seems. to us that on the very small scale hitherto attempted the safeguarding policy has justified itself, and that it is reasonable to expect better results from its further extension. But neither Mr. Baldwin nor Mr. Amery expects that even an unlimited extension would supply a complete cure for unemployment, and at the rate at which their party has lately moved it may be many years before the chance arises. Whether the interval be long or short, the pressure of unemployment is urgent, terrible, and steadily growing. Labour has its own complete long-range remedy for unemployment, and so have the Liberals. But both are prepared, without prejudice to their respective beliefs in these ultimate remedies, 16 take counsel together for the purpose of devising the immediate .palliatives which not so.much the national prosperity as the national safety imperatively demands. Why cannot a party which regards itself as more nation-ally-minded than the others rise to the height of a great emergency with an equal patriotism,' common-sense, and superiority to party catch-words? This apparent short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness on the part of a party led by Mr. Baldwin is the more surprising when one remembers the stress which both Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Thomas have placed upon Imperial development and Imperial trade as remedies or palliatives for domestic unemployment. On the question of. economic relations between the Dominion and this country, said Mr. Mac Donald in' his reply to Sir Austen, Chamberlain, *it would bo very difficult to find a time when goodwill was better and tho desire to co-operate stronger than it was now.' Mr. Mac Donald may be expecting too much, but, if so, it is not for the Conservative Leader whd' made terms with Lord Beaverbrook to say so, and in the Colonies as distinct from the Dominions there is obviously an immense field in which the active cooperation, of all parties might accomplish great. results. But the party which in office gave this. kind of Empire development a great start refuses in Opposition the Labour Govenment's invitation to co-operate in carrying.it further. Even with this inducement added, the Conservatives have rejected a golden opportunity for abating the two greatest evils from which Britain is suffering—unemployment and the three-party system.