SHARP DIVISIONS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 13 October 1943, Page 3

SHARP DIVISIONS

ON POST-WAR POLICY MADE MANIFEST IN BRITAIN. SIGNS OF RESTLESSNESS (Special P.A. Correspondent.) LONDON, October 12. There is restlessness in Britain today. It has nothing to do with the war. but with after the war. It is not of sudden growth, but has been increasing throughout the year, and it is apparent every week in one form or another. The past week has shown a wide gulf-in the approach to post-war policy by Government Ministers themselves. It began with the speech by the Home Secretary. Mr Herbert Morrison, on controls, when he said that "If we are to avoid social and economic catastrophe after the war” we have to continue the present system “of control subject maybe to suitable and sensible modifications, for as long as abnormal condition persist.” This speech was heartily condemned by many newspapers. Then, Captain Harold Balfour, Under-Secretary of State for Air, made a speech against controls, referring to those who aim at “a nation trussed up tight in the stays of State control,” at the “extinction of the little man,” and the creation of a race of “little State stooges.” Then David Low, the cartoonist, got into hot water for a cartoon showingthree opulent people sitting in a car. They were saying: “Planning would sap enterprise and initiative. It weakens self-reliance and self-respect. We must conserve the best quality of the British people. Back to the good old days.” In the background was a long line of unemployed. This was criticised as a “wicked incitement to class hatred.” Though in defence it was stated to be a pretty effective comment on the crude agitation against State intervention, which is essential if the recurring cycles of mass unemployment are to be prevented. In view of the public’s restlessness, considerable interest is being focussed on the new session of Parliament, the “Manchester Guardian" commenting. "We have moved a goo.d deal beyond the mood of the Prime Minister’s broadcast on his four-year plan. He was wrong then in his contention that while we should plan and be prepared, we should leave decisions and legislation till Hitlerism is finally beaten. In one field, the international field, the United Nations are not acting on his principle, because they are already framing machinery which points toward his 'future world organisation.’ In the domestic field equally, we cannot afford to wait.” i