TOPICS OF THE DAY.
A LIBERAL MINISTRY ?
THE main residual fact of the elections is that the voters by a majority of over two to one have rejected the policy of the Labour Party. It is true that the voters, believing that they were being asked to give up the policy of Free Trade, and not merely to prevent certain industries from bang extinguished by the huge bounties automatically offered by foreign exchanges, also condemned Protection in the abstract by a majority which, though less than that by which Socialism was condemned, was almost as emphatic. But, if not altogether in appearance, yet - altogether in fact, the real issue at the polls was between Socialism and anti- Socialism. If the matter is looked at from the point of view of the Labour Party this will be clearly seen. The Labour Party made no concessions of principle or policy In their programme. They put forward what they at any rate believed to be an overwhelming case for the political revolution they desire. And they asked the verdict of the country, not only in every constituency where they thought they had a majority but in every one in which they thought it possible they might win owing to the antagonisms of their rivals. Yet, with all these advantages, they secured considerably under a. third of the votes polled. Therefore, it is perfectly fair to them, and it is also a perfectly just estimate of what happened, to say that the electors rejected Socialism and approved an anti-Socialism policy by a vote of two to one.
One would not imagine from the facts we have just stated that their first consequence would be a Socialist Ministry. Yet, apparently, that is to be the immediate result of a three-party system, working in a Constitution unpossessed of a single safeguard for securing the will of the majority or the prevention of log-rolling I Mr. Asquith in his speech at the National Liberal Club on Tuesday, in effect, made it clear why the imme- diate outcome of the present situation must be what we have described. He was obliged to keep his party compact and in good-heart by abusing his Unionist rivals, and insisting that they must be treated as political lepers, or, at any rate, as a lady whose recent moral faux pas had made it impossible for a virtuous matron to visit her, or even to acknowledge her existence. Yet, if one reads between the lines, it is clear that all the time he was at heart contemplating a Liberal Ministry resting on Unionist votes.
The Liberal Party according to him control the situa- tion. When Parliament meets they will, in conjunction with the Labour Party, turn out the present Government. The King will then send for the chief of the bigger of the two parties which in temporary alliance put out the present Ministry. The King's duty under the Constitu- tion, however, will not stop at inviting Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to form a Ministry. The King will naturally ask the statesman- whom he entrusts with the duty of forming a Government what assurances he is able to give that he will be able to command a majority in the House of Commons. He will be obliged to ask this question because of the great inconveniences and dangers of having another election in the course of the next few weeks. In such circumstances, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald would, it is assunied, tell the King, that he desired to form a Ministry with a proggamme which he hoped and believed would not cause his immediate defeat in the House of Commons. The meaning of such a statement, if made, would be that Mr. Asquitth had undertaken not to put the Labour Government out unless they introduced legislation, such as the Capital Levy, which must at• on be condemned by the Liberal Party. In other words, the Labour Party would come in with the limited.consent of the Liberal Party.
Suppose that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. is willing to accept office on these terms, whether expressed or implied. It is clear that Mr. Asquith. contemplates. that such an. arrangement would not last for very long ; in other words, he looks forward in the future to combining' with the Unionist Party to turn the Labour Ministry out of office. The Unionists, he presumes, would then acquiesce in his Government for fear that otherwise something they disliked much more, that is, a. Labour Government, would remain in power and carry out a Socialistic policy.
Has Mr. Asquith good ground for his presumptions ? We are not quite sure that he has. No doubt the Unionist Party cannot stultify themselves by- pretending that they would rather see a Socialist policy carried out than have a Liberal Government in power. Might they not, nevertheless, say to him something of this sort? "Though we do not love each other, we must come to some sort of arrangement. You must not, however, consider that you have a prescriptive right to be the emergency men in the present situation. After all, we form the largest part of the anti-Socialist Party. It is true that we have made a mess of things, and that our • policy has been condemned by the voters. It is, however, equally true to say that the Liberal policy has- not been approved. That being so, a better plan than putting you into office would be to choose some neutral statesman, and let him carry on the Government for a couple of years with the assistance of, say, half-a-dozen moderate and Centre men, chosen from each section of the anti,Soeialist Parties." In our opinion, that would be a sound solution. If, however, owing to personal jealousies and part3 animosity, this cannot be accomplished, then we have no hesitation in saying that it will be the duty of the Unionist Party to support, for a time, at any rate, a Government under Mr. Asquith as the lesser of the two evils.
The Liberals, from our point of view, will not have played a very noble or patriotic part. We refuse, how- ever, to admit that; because they are determined to snatch a party advantage from the blunder committed by Mr. Baldwin, we Unionists- should therefore play an equally selfish game. We of all parties must not set the example of sacrificing what we believe to be the essential' interests of the country to party interests. Once more, all roads lead to the Referendum. Even the Lebow Party would benefit thereby. If we could secure that no vital revolution in national policy should take place before it had received the direct sanction of the voters as a whole, there are many men—Unionists and Moderates of all kinds—who would feel very differently about a. Labour Ministry than they do now. They would say, and we should be with them, "LetLabour have a chance."
In other words, if we fitted the Constitution with the safety-catch of the Referendum we should have the advantage of the widest power of selection in our Administrations.
And now we have one word more. The Unionist Party have been bean on the issue of Protection, and handsomely beaten, and there is, in fact, no fear of its revival ; but the country as a whole probably does not realize this. It is therefore of the greatest possible im- portance that the Unionist leaders should, when Parlia- ment meets, put on record, in the plainest way, that though they cannot bind the future any more than any other party, they for the present whole-heartedly repu- diate any desire to disturb the principle of Free Trade as nart of our national policy..
J. Sr. Los STRACHEV.
Previous page
