Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1930. PARTIES AND PERSONALITIES

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 139, 10 December 1930, Page 10

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1930. PARTIES AND PERSONALITIES

Sir Oswald Mosley seems to have over-reached himself in his latest attempt to quicken the pace of the Government from which he retired because he found their pace, especially in regard to unemployment, too slow. The eighteen Labour M.P.'s who have signed his manifesto probably represent nine-tenths of the flying squadron of twenty which two or three weeks ago he was reported to be taking with him to East Renfrew to support an Independent Labour candidate, even though it might expose the Government to defeat in the House, That trouble was settled without a split in the party, though we have not been told on what terms, but the manifesto reported on Monday, of which the encyclopaedic range is not more remarkable than its proposal to create an emergency Cabinet of five Ministers without portfolios to carry it out, appears to have missed fire. On previous occasions the defeat of Sir Oswald Mosley's proposals has not prevented his making a deep impression, but on this occasion it is probable that the Government will not think it necessary to pay him the compliment of a defeat. Labour, says the "Daily Telegraph's" political correspondent, regards Sir Oswald Mosley's manifesto as a damp squib. Ministers intend to ignore it, r.s its proposals are impracticable, and not even worth while to summon a meeting to discuss. This attitude shows that the prestige which the Government lost through the resignation of Sir Oswald Mosley and his influence on the party's Left Wing, and partially recovered at the Llandudno Conference, has been still further restored, and that he is making the mistake of attempting too much and too soon. As the multiplicity of parties and the internal dissensions from which they all suffer are among the most distressing features of British politics, this check to the power of Labour's Left Wing is a good thing, not only for the Government but for the country. In the present state of embarrassment and confusion a General Election would be a national disaster, and the disaster would be aggravated if four parties went to the poll instead of three. The ideal number is, of course, two, but the hope that this change could be effected, or even set in train, during the present Parliament seems to be just as remote as ever. There is, on the contrary, still room for fear that the present informal understanding between Labour and Liberalism may not be strong enough to carry on a much discredited Government for a year or two longer and postpone the General Election, which nobody, except perhaps the Empire Crusaders, appears to want. There is, as Mr. Lloyd George says, "no pact, no deal" between the two parties. It is probable that, if he had had his way, there would have been one before now, but it is not surprising that the Government took a different view, even though it has involved their precarious dependence in one important division after another upon the goodwill of the Liberals and their leader's idea of tactics. The speech on Friday last, in which Mr. Lloyd George made a slashing attack on the Government and followed it up by announcing his intention of keeping them in office, was as near to "set fair" as their barometer can be expected to point under existing conditions. The deduction from that speech, says "The Times," is the fact that there will be no General Election if he can help it. In June, when Mr. Mac Donald invited the co-operation of the other parties in the struggle with unemployment and agricultural distress, and Mr. Baldwin refused to help, Mr. Lloyd George's acceptance of the invitation seemed to be opening up just the chance he wanted for improving his relations with the Government. But though the conversations are apparently still proceeding, and the Liberals' ideas regarding unemployment and agriculture are at any rate receiving a fair hearing, Mr. Lloyd George's desire for a closer intimacy and a more general co-operation between the two parties does not appear to have received any encouragement. One reason evidently is a mutual incompatibility of temperament which makes it easy for the two leaders to misunderstand one another and difficult for them to co-operate. Mr. Mac Donald has long been reputed to have a personal dislike for Mr. Lloyd George, and the attempted co-operation has not been without incidents that may well have increased it. It was certainly very odd that when the negotiations were proceeding, Mr. Lloyd George should have thought fit to speak with the utmost contempt of the other party, with special reference to the principal matter under discussion. At ■Stowmarket on the 20th September he is reported by the "Manchester Guardian" to have spoken as follows:— 1 am prepared to support ami co-oper-ate with nny Government that deals wisely, firmly, and promptly with the trade and unemployment, situation—a "Government that will storj the rut of

unemployment, restore the prosperity of the countryside, that will give peace to a distracted world, that will handle the situation in India with a firm and just hand, and at the- same time do .justice at home to the five million wellbehaved citizens who are at the present moment robbed of two-thirds of their constitutional rights. lam looking for a Government of that sort. . . . I cannot pretend that I am satisfied with the present exhibition of self-com-placent and stubborn ineptitude, but I must be satisfied it is incurable first. There are not many incurable diseases, and it is just possible that a. little medicine may cure them. With a much milder sarcasm llian his own, the "Spectator" remarked that Mr. Lloyd George had decided that for some- reason, hidden from us, such words would make co-operation easier. The co-opcraLion nevertheless continued, but in his address lo the Labour Party's Conference at Llandudno, Mr. Mac Donald, who, according to the same authority, "quickly shoWed himself master of his audience," made some interesting comments. Some curious passages in'the speech, says the "Spectator," (11th October), were aimed at Mr. Lloyd George. Mr. Mac Donald said that when he was negotiating he did not "run to the newspapers at tho end of every meeting" and tell them that he has given the other person "a, tremendous thrashing." Again, "You don't get up one morning, either at Churfc or at Downing Street, and half between sleeping and waking wave a wand and somebody on a flying carpet comes with a scheme to build'a road between Liverpool and Manchester." The Liberals profess to be puzzled by such references. We cannot imagine why. Mr. Lloyd George's, abuse of Mr. Mac Donald which. we mentioned last, week is a plain enough explanation. The Liberals may perhaps consider that their own hard hitter may hit as hard as he likes without giving anybody the right to let him have a tap in return. Mr. Mac Donald's retort was all tile more effective because he did not treat the invective of his contemptuous co-operator too seriously. _^