ELECTION NOTES

TEACHERS and others concerned with education would do well to study the references to education in the three party manifestos. The Labour document devotes five lines to the subject, and in stating " Labour has raised the school leaving age " omits to add that that was laid down in the 1944 Education Act introduced by Mr. R. A. Butler and passed by the National Government. The same is true of the abolition of fees in secondary schools, for which Labour apears to desire to claim credit. Nothing is said about the crying need for an increase in teachers' salaries, on which the Liberals and Conservatives lay marked emphasis. The Liberals very rightly describe the decision that no child should take the General Certificate of Education before the age of 16 as " a further restriction on personal liberty." The Conservatives, who devote to education more than twice as much space as the Liberals, and about five times as much as Labour, speak of carrying out to the full the reforms set out in the 1944 Act, of discussing with all the authorities con- cerned, notably the religious denominations, the application of development plans, including the adoption, where necessary, of simpler standards for school buildings—a step which would help the voluntary schools, whose managers have to find half the cost of reconstruction. Particular emphasis is laid on the reduction of the size of classes, and one specially welcome declaration is that " we attach special importance to retaining the traditions and wherever possible the corporate life of the grammar schools." In another field the Conservatives pledge themselves, if elected, to restore University representation forthwith. * * * * " Sir Stafford Cripps has a habit of ending his speech with an appeal to spiritual values ; has candour no place among these spiritual values ? "—Lady Violet Bonham-Carter at Rochdale.

The stricture is abundantly justified. The Chancellor's broadcast on devaluation is not yet forgotten. But it fades into insignificance beside his declaration in his election broadcast last Friday that the Tories " are going, they say, to abolish food subsidies." There can be only two explanations of that flagrant mis-statement. Either Sir Stafford was recklessly attacking his opponents without troubling to find out what their policy was ; or he was deliberately stating what he knew to be false. The statement having been stigmatised as a falsehood, by Mr. R. A. Butler and others, Sir Stafford has neither explained nor withdrawn. The answer to Lady Violet's question is clearly in the negative.

* * * * " Labour hopes that the presence here (Sunderland) of Mr. C. J. Kitchell, a Liberal, will ensure their winning both seats."

" Although he (Mr. Chuter Ede) has the irritation of a Communist opponent, this is more than compensated for by having both a Liberal and a Conservative against him."

" In North Newcastle . . . Labour hopes to slip in on a Liberal vote increased at the Conservative expense:" In East Newcastle they (Labour) " feel that the Liberal interven- tion of Alderman W. McKeag will ensure the re-election of Mr. A. Blenkinsop."—The Manchester Guardian, February 7th.

* * * * " It is clear that this General Election is heavy with doom. As a Liberal I naturally feel a strong tie of loyalty to the official organisation, but in this moment of crisis sectional loyalties must give way. Having a tremendous sense of the importance of the overthrow of the present Government for the whole future prospects of Britain, I feel impelled to come forward and call on Liberals to cast their votes for the candidate most likely to defeat the Socialists." —Mr. Roy Harrod at Oxford. * * * * The tendency to depict Mr. Churchill as a great war-leader but not the man for peace-leadership continues. What constitutes qualification for peace-leadership ? Intellectual capacity ? Has Mr. Churchill shown himself deficient in that ? The power to inspire ? Practical experience in administration ? Here, indeed, is where he does, perhaps, fall short. He has only been President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, First Lord of the Admiralty, Minister of Munitions, Secretary for War, Air Minister, Colonial Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister. Whereas Mr. Morrison (who observes of the Conservative leader, "between you and me, economics isn't up his street ") has held the administrative offices of Minister of Transport, Minister of Supply and• Home Secretary, and the non-administrative office of Lord President of the*Council.

Look here upon this picture, and on this— The counterfeit presentment of two statesmen.

* * " Suppose he is run over by a bus—even Mr. Churchill is not immortal "—Mr. Aneurin Bevan at Liverpool.

Well, there's always hope. He was knocked down by a taxi-cab in New York. It might develop into a habit.

*

It is a pity the Conservatives are not a little more explicit about the reduction of food subsidies. No one expects them to produce a cut-and-dried plan at this stage. But at least it would be well to show by one or two examples what the possibilities are, if only to counter the Labour demonstrations of what would happen if subsidies were abolished—which no sane or responsible person has ever suggested. It should be perfectly easy. Take butter, which is now ls. 6d. a lb., and would, according to Mr. Strachey, go up to '3s. if the whole subsidy were withdrawn. It might or might not ; that would depend on the supply and on the demand at the higher price. But suppose it were allowed to go to 2s. That would mean that every person would pay lid. a week more. Would that hurt anyone ? The Government after all has raised the cost of school meals by a penny a day. But look at it as a whole. The subsidies are worth, according to Labour Ministers, 14s. a week for a family of four. Suppose they were cut to 13s. That would mean Is. a week extra for a family of four, or 3d. per head. How many families are there who could not save that a dozen times over on beer and tobacco ? The saving would be something over £30,000,000—worth having, even if something extra were given in pensions or family allowances in compensation.

* * * * " When Labour took office the food subsidies amounted to £265,000,000, but by April, 1949, they had risen to £485,000,000."—

Labour Party Speakers' Handbook. * * * * Persons addicted to prophesying the result of the General Election would do well to consider what the actual Conservative task is. At the Dissolution Labour held 391 seats, Conservatives and National Liberals 226, but of these half a dozen were University seats, which now disappear. Probably about 220 is the right Opposition figure. In the new House of 625 members a clear majority will be 313, but nothing under fifty would give a Govern- ment real stability. But with something lower than that a Cabinet could carry on. If the Conservatiy,es could secure 330 seats, that would give them the not impossible majority of 35 (leaving out of account the Speaker's seat, and the unknown effect which the votes of a certain number of Liberals and Independents might be). What is the prospect of the Tories securing 110 seats at present held by other parties ? It is of course perfectly practicable, but the prospect of Conservative gains of any consequence in Scotland and Wales is generally held to be small. If the party is to win it must win in England. Can it in England alone hold all its existing seats and gain 110 more ? That is the vital question. General Elections have, of course, often shown much greater turnovers than this. It is a formidable task, all the same.

* * * "If other Ministers had followed Mr. Attlee's example in good manners there would be much less class warfare in this country. He has shown dignity and restraint."—Mr. Brendan Bracken at West

Ham.

Mr. Bracken is quite right.