POLITICAL UNEASE

Wairarapa Times-Age, 28 September 1942, Page 3

POLITICAL UNEASE

REPORTED IN BRITAIN CRITICISM OF PARLIAMENT & LEADERS. WORK NOT BEING DONE BY ABLEST PEOPLE. (Special P.A. Correspondent.) LONDON, September 26. Bcnealli Britain’s war el‘fort is growing restlessness over the political situation based on the feeling, not. only that Parliament is not i'linctioning as it should, but that the work', is not being done by the ablest people.

The "Economist,'’ in an article entitled "The political dilemma,” widely noted, declares: "Neither of the two large parties—Conservatives and Labour—evokes the slightest enthusiasm in the ranks of the people, while both so firmly command the machinery of politics that there is no prospect for a long time of dislodging either or both. Between them these statements constitute the British political dilemma.”

It adds that the present Coalition is held only by Mr Churchill’s personality. He is party leader because he is Prime Minister, not Prime Minister because he is party leader. No very great enthusiasm is felt in the country for the Government, while Labour leaders as a whole have not made good Ministers. Therefore, the public believes, almost subconsciously, that it must look for its super-men in the ranks of expelled Labourites or those who have never borne the Labour label. “Without much doubt if the elector knew a better hole he would flock there in such numbers as to change the face of British politics, but there is no better hole,”, states the article. There is no brand new party in sight, nor the slightest sign of the creation of one by the classical method of a split between leaders of one or more of the old parties. PARTIES HAMPERED. Both the present parties, the article observes, are hampered by their own uncertainty of belief. Neither is in the least sure of what it stands for. The truth is that the old distinction between left and right has become almost meaningless. The real distinction which is emerging with even greater clarity is that between the philosophy of the community serving the welfare of the, individual and the philosophy that regards the community merely as a framework within which divergent interests can try their strength. This cleavage divides both parties equally. Neither can afford to take an open line on it; both therefore, are dumb on the only real, continuing issue. “The basic explanation of the present position is not that politicians do not know what they stand for, but that nobody would believe them if they said so.”

The “Economist” adds that to improve the personnel of politics a double approach is needed, first to discover and remove impediments now preventing the best men and women from entering politics; secondly, when they are forthcoming to enable them to enter, “which requires willingness on the part of the two party machines to accept a radically different type of candidate.” Finally it suggests that Britain might adopt the American devicq of the “primary,” which is an election held and supervised throughout the State, enabling members of each party to choose by popular vote the party’s candidate at the main election. LIMITS ON SELECTION. The “Round Table” says that time and money are the first thought of prospective candidates, thus the majority of members of the Commons are either people of independent means, trade unionists, or members of a limited list of professions. “These categories tend to be over represented," it says. “Retired ‘business men are common, but men actively in touch with modern industry are surprisingly few. Agriculture is represented by landowners, not land agents, working farmers, or agricultural labourers. The more powerful trade unions have numerically strong representation, but working men not belonging to one of the unions are largely excluded. The great middle class, backbone of the professions, and the local life of the nation, are almost totally unrepresented, for their members can neither afford the time nor the money.” The “Round Table” adds that it cannot be right that as at present onetenth of the members of the House should be over 70 years old, one-quar-ter between 70 and 60, and barely oneeighth under 40.

Mr Randolph Churchill recently suggested that the parties rid themselves on a “class basis,” and adopt a patriotic rather than a sectional standpoint in future, warning that unless they put their house in order a centre parly would arise and sweep them, away, but comment generally pooh-poohed the idea of a centre party. This strongly-running undercurrent will sooner or later come to the surface. Meanwhile it is hoped that when it does it will produce new leaders, of which there is some bankruptcy at present.