ELECTION ISSUES
THE political situation has been considerably clarified in the past week. The Labour Party having withdrawn its Ministers from the National Government, Mr. Churchill has reconstructed his administration rapidly and with marked success. He has been criticised for not introducing " new blood," particularly non- political new blood, into the higher offices. But that obviously was impracticable. No business man, like Lord Wootton or Lord Leathers, could be expected to break all his associations to become a Minister in a Government that may have no more than some eight weeks to live. It was a case of making the best of existing material, and it is hard to see how the material could have been used better. Mr. Morrison and Mr. Bevin are heavy losses ; so is Sir Archibald Sinclair at the' Air Ministry. Sir Donald Somervell will be called on to display new qualities at the Home Office ; Mr. Butler would• no doubt have preferred to stay at the Ministry of Education and administer the Act with which his name is inseparably associated, but he is the one Minister who already has some experience of the Ministry of Labour, where his proved abilities will be tested to the utmost as he succeeds to the immense task of carrying cut the demobilisation plans which Mr. Bevin has already framed ; if he can succeed here as he did at the Ministry of Education his progress to the highest office should be assured. It is in filling the secondary posts that Mr. Churchill has had most difficulty, but in giving. Sir Arthur Salter the Duchy of Lancaster, with special charge of European reconstruction, he has materially strengthened and broadened his administration. The appointment of Sir Walter Monckton as Solicitor-General is another excellent choice. Among the under-secretaryships special interest attaches to the allocation of Lord Scarbrough, who as Sir Roger Lumley was a most successful Governor of Bombay, to the India Office. Altogether this is far from being a mere " caretaker " administra- tion.
As for the election issues, they too have been clarified consider- ably. The choice before the electors is much clearer cut than it was a week ago. In a situation destined inevitably to remain critical for months or years yet, no serious student of affairs can question the need for the perpetuation of National Government. The consti- tution of this country depends largely on the party system and the wholesome controversy and criticism which it stimulates, but there are moments when party conflict must be suspended, and all the strength of all parties combined in an essential and concentrated effort. The success with which that can be achieved has been brilliantlydemonstrated in the last five years, with results unequalled, and indeed unapproached, by any coalition government in British history. With Japan still to be defeated, the plans for a World Organisation to be first framed and then carried out, a peace settle- ment to be devised and agreed, the material and economic recon- struction of Europe to be achieved, a vast and essential social reform programme to be executed at home, the demand for a prolongation of the united effort would seem to be unanswerable except on the assumption that party interests come before national. Not, of course, that there is any argument against a general election, if general election there must be, fought on party lines. A revision of the membership of the House of Commons will be all to the good, provided the different parties, with some change of per- sonnel, combine again to carry the nation through the perils which still menace. it.. But that, by the decision of the Labour Party, is not to be. It was announced at Blackpool on Friday by the chair- man-elect of the party that " there was no possibility of joining in a coalition with the Conservatives." If, therefore, Mr. Churchill remains Prime Minister no members of the Labour Party will accept office in- his Government. If Labour is the largest party it will invite no Conservatives to share its burdens. The issue, therefore, as has been said, is clear-cut. The choice lies between a Labour Government and another Coalition Govern- ment, less comprehensive than the last but not necessarily less practically efficient. It would certainly not be a Tory Govern- ment—though Labour, of course, will endeavour to affix that label—for Mr. 'Churchill has publicly declared his intention of drawing on all the ability he can command in men of all parties or none. To Conservati7es like himself and Mr. Eden, Lord Cranborne and Mr. Lyttelton, he would certainly add again all. the National Liberals who now support him, and non-party men like Sir John Anderson and Lord Woolton, Lord Leathers and Sir James Grigg, who have done much invaluable service in the present administration, while invitations would clearly be extended again to Sir Archibald Sinclair and his colleagues,—and the Sinclair Liberals, unlike the Labour Party, have studiously refrained from closing the door to renewed co-operation. Sworn supporters of the Labour Party will, of course, vote Labour at the election. Faced with a choice between a Labour Government and a limited Coalition Government, the average unpledged voter will be con- strained by both his intelligence and his concern for the national interest to vote for the latter. That does not mean necessarily voting Conservative ; a Conservative predominance such as exists in the present House of Lords is indeed not to be desired. The particular conditions in each constituency must determine the indi- vidual elector's choice. If he does not desire a Labour Govern- ment it is wise not to cast a vote which may have the effect of letting the Labour candidate in. Where that eventuality does not seem to arise the claim of the average Liberal candidate is strong, for the presence in the next House of Commons of a strong Liberal Party, with its leaders holding Cabinet office as they have till this week, would be a valuable buttress against the reactionary wing of the Tory Party and an equally valuable reinforcement to the " Young Tory " progressive element, between whom and the Liberals so little practical difference exists either in foreign policy or on domestic questions. It might conceivably fall to the Liberals to hold the balance between the two larger parties. If that should happen it would be their plain duty in the national interest to create political stability in the only way possible—by joining as 'unreservedly in the next coalition as they did in the last.
The arguments against a reversion to a purely party government at the present juncture are overwhelming. Urgent as the problems arising in the domestic field are, they are all of them subsidiary to the problems impending abroad, for without stability in inter- national relations the vast expenditure which the social reform programme calls for will be impossible. Here the personal element inevitably asserts itself. Nonsense—the kind of nonsense cus- tomary at elections—is being talked about Tory exploitation of Mr. Churchill. What is in fact being manifested is a national demand, both instinctive and intelligent, for Mr. Churchill. How could a sane nation fail to demand him? We are frankly still in the stage of power-politics, and must be till the debris of the war is cleared up. The three men who controlled the supreme power in the world were Mr. Churchill, President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin. President Roosevelt is gone, and though President Truman has risen impressively and inspiringly to his responsibilities he is so far without experience in international discussions. Marshal Stalin can be relied on to put Russia's point of view forcibly and frankly. Is it for the welfare of the world that President Truman, entering the Council of Three for the first time, should find him, self supported by Mr. Churchill or by Mr. Attlee, by a national. leader or a party leader? What applies to Mr. Churchill applies with hardly less force to Mr. Eden. That the nation should de- liberately deprive itself of the services of two such men (for Labour if it took office would in no circumstances " join in a coalition with Conservatives ") who by capacity and continuity of experience in the foreign field stand predominant over any other man in any party is so completely inconceivable that the danger of its hap- pening may seem negligible. But no risks can be run. The issues at stake are far too grave. This is an election on which the world has its eyes. And with good reason, for the vote the electorate of Great Britain will cast will affect the whole world. There is no need to magnify either the Prime Minister's ability or his services ; it would be difficult to exaggerate either. But outside this country he is a symbol as well as a personality. For his own country to reject him now would confound every friend of Great Britain and gratify only those who wish us ill. British votes should not be determined by non-British opinion, but British voters, as they dis- charge their responsibilities, ought to have all the factors in the situation present to their minds.
Previous page
