The Sun SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1927. WEE DAVY COMES BACK

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 230, 17 December 1927, Page 8

The Sun SATURDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1927. WEE DAVY COMES BACK

FOII a lustrum at least Mr. David Lloyd George has liad to be content with being merely a chief in the house of Pharaoh. Now he is Pharaoh himself, his heart hardening again against the Tories. The great little Welshman has been elected Leader of the Liberal Party.

As the Scots folk would say pawkily, “Wee Davy has come hack.” The question now is whether the pebble in his political sling will be hard enough to slay the Goliath of Conservatism. You may not like the man, you may even hate his impish ways in politics, but always, after everything for and against him has been said, you must admire the sheer merit of his singular statesmanship. Though there is much for which he has to be forgiven before lie is again taken to the heart of the people, he is still the most piquant figure in British politics. Moreover, he is still the most alert force both for political good and for political evil, yea, the most elusive and most skilful player in the great game of statecraft. Has he not the eye for the big chance, a flair for opportunism, the ready, audacious wit for magnetic leadership? Long ago, among the flinty hills of his own country, the source of his quick inspiration, he solemnly declared to an eager audience of Welsh farmers: “We will have Home Rule for Ireland and for England and for Scotland and for Wales.” “Yes,” agreed a guttural voice, “and for hell.” “Quite right,” riposted Mr. Lloyd George, “I like to hear a man stand up for his own country.” A chestnut, you may Say ; of course, it is a chestnut, but then, so is Mr. Lloyd George, and a roasted chestnut at that.

It need hardly be argued that if there is a key to the future of Liberalism it is in his possession. But will he he able to unlock the door to a splendid Liberal revival, assured of success, destined to bring into harmony and effective national practice once more the famous traditions of the party in the past. The answer to that question must be left to Time and its healing, constructive processes. In the present dark night of Liberalism the prospect of the bright dawning of a new Liberal day is murky and cold. Even the stoutest-hearted Liberals all the world over will put very tentatively to themselves this inevitable question: “Gan it be that the Liberal Party in Great Britain is at last at the end of of its troubles, free to go forward unhindered in its serious work, confident of complete success?” The yearning for power is there, and the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak and grievously bruised. To-day the remnant of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons is like a lost tribe in the desert, or as Hagar in the wilderness, crying for succour and the living waters of political life. It has suffered for years from a lack of unity, a division of counsel, a paralysis of its energies. It has spoken with many voices, all shrilf and peevish. When the Earl of Oxford and Asquith retired from the party leadership, it was considered prudent to mark time and await the coming of the right moment and the right man. One wonders why there should have been so much hesitation and delay about making the choice of a leader. In the stubbled field of Liberalism there was really no rival to Mr. Lloyd George. He alone has the essential quickness of sympathy, the imagination the energy, and the gift of oratory (which must not be despised) for leadership and the development of constructive statesmanship. Moreover, he holds the party’s accumulated funds for financing a great conflict with Socialism in one camp and dull Toryism in the other.

There is need of a reforming spirit in British polities. Mr. Lloyd George may not be able to recover all the lost laurels of Liberalism, but (to be topical) he is the Ben-Hur for the occasion. He is a bom leader of revolt. And the revolution that is needed most to-day is one against political stodg'iness and stagnation.