I have said that the Budget debate continues, but so
far no one has made a penetrating analysis of the Budget's contents. Almost every newspaper has described it as "timid," "tinkering," or "interim." The unorthodox financial specialists have proved to their own satisfaction that no Budget could possibly succeed in bridging the gap between expenditure and revenue. Indi- vidual points have been raised, but it has remained for the Press and weekly journals to demand that the Government faces squarely the issue of paying for the war. Petty Officer A. P. Herbert made a memorable attack on Sir Kingsley Wood in re- lation to the tax on books. It was necessary to pin responsibility on the Chancellor, because he shows no sympathy with the case, and his Financial Secretary failed even to answer the powerful and sincere appeal made by the distinguished Senior Burgess for Oxford University. The tax on weeklies and newspapers may yet be opposed. But meanwhile Sir John Anderson has assumed more powers to suppress the written word, without warning and without appeal. Over ioo members voted against the Secret Session, and over 6o members voted against these new powers. The Executive can now do what it likes with the people, indeed everything except trust them. It must not be surprised if national unity is to some extent diminished by these repeated examples of unimaginative treat- ment by an all-powerful Government.
Previous page
