WAR POLICY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 133, 6 May 1940, Page 7

WAR POLICY

CRITICISM IN BRITAIN. BLUNDERS ALLEGED. BOLDER ACTION URGED. (United Press Association—By Electric 1 elegra pn—Copy rigln,.) LONDON, May 5. The Observer expresses the opinion that the Government is facing a situation more critical to itself than any since the outbreak of war. All the suspicions of hesitancy smouldering during the Finnish campaign have flamed up in a way threatening the existence of the Administration. Mr Lloyd George, in an article in the Sun Pictorial, says: “It is no use keeping up the pretence that tilings are going well for the democracies. We are suffering not from one blunder but from a series of incredible botclieries. Cabinet lias failed conspicuously in its efforts to grapple with the situation, which is one of extreme gravity. It is now for Parliament to take it in hand immediately. If they fail to do so without delay they will be guilty of high treason to the nation. “The war’s direction must be drastically reconstructed in organisation and personnel, otherwise disaster is inevitable.” RESIGNATION PROPOSED. Mr Herbert Morrison (Labour), in a speech at Southampton, said: “1 have a suspicion that Mr Chamberlain, Sir John S.mon and Sir Samuel Hoare, whose iveak foreign policy landed us in war, are primarily responsible for the relative weakness of our war effort. I urge them to consider whether their best service to the country may not be by way of resignation.” Mr Morrison said the recent events in Norway constituted a setback which it would- be self-deception to hide and cowardice to evade. He deprecated attempts to present these events as a British victory.“It is of real importance that our people should be able to take blows and at tlie same time keep up their morale,” lie said. “I believe they are so able, but it is not enough to be able to receive blows. We must give them. “Speed and yet more speed is what we need in Government administration and military effort of all kinds. We must not always fear to take the initiative. We must reject the silly superstition that democracy is incapable of speed. That is a dictatorship lie.” GOVERNMENT’S DUTY. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr C. It. Attlee), speaking at Ipswich, said the events of the week in Norway inevitablv caused a good deal of anxiety (states the British Official Wireless). It must be acknowledged that the Allies at present had been unable to prevent Southern Norway passing into the hands of Hitler. That was a setback. They would, in the House of Commons next week, discuss the matter fully. It would be the duty of tlie Government to satisfy the nation that everything possible was done. The fact that tlie Government must render account of their actions to representatives of the people marked the difference between democracy and dictatorship. Hitler lost the greater part of the German fleet and very many German lives in an unprovoked attack on a peaceful neutral country, but there was no one in -Germany who could call him to account. The fate of Denmark and Norway ought to bring homo to everyone the issues at stake in this contest. The Allies were fighting to make a wor d in which small, peaceful peoples would be able to live their lives m security free from tlie menace of attack iioni predatory neighbours. ’ LABOUR’S AIMS. They of the Labour Party liad always realised that this could not be acnieved in an anarchic world. He claimed it had been the object of the Labour movement irom its inception .to build up collective security tor ordinary men and women. The trade union, the friendly society and co-oper-ative society were all forms of collective defence, ■ designed to bring about greater security. Tlie political Labour movement had sought by legislative action to protect those unable to protect themselves. Children, the sick and aged had all received some degree of help from society. These things were good, out they were not enough. The Red Cross was a fine institution, but it did not relieve the necessity of abolishing war. The unemployment benefit was a great advance, but it did not not abolish unemployment. He declared, in conclusion, that the Labour Party, in its foreign policy, stood for getting rid of the causes of war and in its home policy for getting rid of the causes of poverty. The keynote of Labour’s homo policy, issued by the Labour Party, as a pamphlet, is contained in the sentence: “To-day we plan for the destructive tasks of war. The party insists that it is not less urgent to plan for the creative tasks of peace. Tlie pamphlet declares that the Socialism of the Labour Party is built upon profound faith in the people of Britain and determination to press Unnecessary social changes upon the basis of democracy and justice. The party rejects all demands for dictatorship, whether from the Left or the Right. If the war is to he won with the least suffering and hardship Socialist principles must be applied, it states. After tlie war tlie national effort must be turned to the building of a new Britain. Key industries and services upon which tlie wellbeing of .the nation depends must be transferred to public ownership.