ELECTION NOTES
(These notes were of necessity written before the votes were cast.)
THE end of the Election broadcasts has left the balance of performance slightly in favour of the Conservatives. That represents a rather belated swing to the Right. In the early talks Lord Salisbury and Mr. Eden were the more thoughtful. but Mr. Maurice Webb and Mr. Morrison more adroit at catching the listener's ear. Mr. Bevin was as lamentably unsuccessful at getting home to his audience as Dr. Charles Hill was brilliantly successful. Then came Mr. Churchill, restrained and impressive (why does he call Mr. Bevan Anoyrin when he knows perfectly well that the second syllable of his Christian name is Nye ?), leaving to the Prime Minister the heavy task of equalling the Conservative leader and pulling up the general average which Mr. Bevin had sent slumping down. It was a great deal—and a little too much—to ask. Mr. Attlee was, as he always is, admirably competent, but just not quite inspiring. His rather trite quotation from Milton could not have been easy for listeners unacquainted with it to follow and, anyhow, the picture of "a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep" does not chime too well with (for example) the report of the Girdwood Committee on the building industry that it took three men to do in 1947 the work that two men did in 1939. But taking his record as a whole during the election the Prime Minister has deserved well of his followers. He has never used an unworthy phrase (what has come of the Labour predictions that this was to be "the dirtiest election in living memory" ?) ; he has throughout been content to put in quiet, effective, undramatic work on scores of Labour platforms up and down the country. If
the Socialists are beaten it will not be his fault.
■ * * * * The Liberal Party might be wise to consider voting methods further. It sticks like glue to Proportional Representation, which it has not the remotest chance of securing. Both the other Parties naturally reject a system which would lose them seats to a third Party, and a good many other people, not tied to Party, are against anything which might produce a House of Commons in which no Party had a clear majority, and uneasy bargains and manoeuvrings would be necessary. But the system on which the West German Parliament at Bonn is based is at least worth considering. There- to put it briefly-60 per cent of the seats are determined by a straight vote, as in this country, but the remaining 40 per cent, go to the different parties in each Land in proportion to the total number of votes cast ; the individual Deputies are those placed highest on lists drawn up by the parties themselves. This method might not give the Liberals as many seats as Pro- portional Representation would, but Proportional Representation is as much a mirage as ever. It would almost certainly give them more seats than they get under the present system, and the two other Parties might be disposed to consider it, since they would both get their share, presumably a larger share than the Liberals, of the 40 per cent. of seats.
* * * * Mr. Morrison displayed something less than his usual sagacity in tilting at the Stock Exchange on Saturday, but more good than harm came of it in the admirable and prompt declaration it elicited from the Chairman of the Stock Exchange, Mr. J. B. Braithwaite, as to the functions of that historic and indispensable institution. The fundamental fact, of course, as Mr. Braithwaite pointed out, is that prices on the Stock Exchange are not fixed arbitrarily by sinister and anonymous operators, but by the ordinary process of supply and demand, in accordance with what individual investors up and down the country are prepared to pay, or ready to accept, for a given security. There is no doubt a little more in it than that. Investors are to some extent guided by the advice of their brokers, and (what did not occur to Mr. Morrison) London brokers are daily in constant touch by telephone with provincial brokers all over the country. What happened last week was that messages were reaching Throgmorton Street from all quarters indicating (rightly or wrongly) that almost everywhere a swing to the Right was setting in. That, and nothing more malign than that, was what influenced the markets—and when all is said and done the movement was by no means sensational.
* * * * Mr. Morgan Phillips, Secretary of the Labour Party, scored rather heavily at Mr. Churchill's expense at Wakefield on Sunday night. Lord Beaverbrook, deeming it undesirable to let well alone, had written an article in the Sunday Express about the suggestion of direct talks with Stalin on atomic warfare, and quoted the eulogistic references Stalin had made to Churchill in conversation with him (Lord Beaverbrook) in Moscow in 1941. But a good many things have happened since 1941, and Mr. Phillips produced with con- siderable effect a passage from a book by General Bedell Smith, the former United States Ambassador at Moscow, who heard Stalin's views several years later than 1941. They had changed substantially. "Stalin," wrote the former Ambassador, "expressed strong resent- ment at the Iron Curtain speech made at Fulton, Missouri, by Winston Churchill. This speech, Stalin said, was an unfriendly act.
It was an unwarranted attack upon the U.S.S.R." The date of the Fulton speech was March 5th, 1946. But many things, again, have happened since 1946. There is no need to suppose that memories of Fulton will prejudice proposals emanating from Mr. Churchill in 1950.
k * * *
The only two papers which have surveyed the individual con- stituencies comprehensively on a national scale during the election are The Times and the Manchester Guardian. There are no doubt good reasons why other journals should have had to limit their activities in this direction—chief among them paper shortage. That is no reason for withholding a tribute to these two newspapers for the efficiency with which they have performed just the service their readers need most. The assessment of constituency prospects by regional groups was marked in both papers by complete objectivity. Of the two, the Manchester Guardian was the more useful because of its more numerous outline maps showing the boundaries (almost all of them in the case of countries) of the different constituencies. Apart from that there was little to choose between them.
* * On this page last week reference was made to Mr. Attlee's declaration in his book The Labour Party in Perspective, first .pub- fished in 1937, that "the Labour Party stands for national owner- ship of the land," with the comment that it seems very necessary to know whether this represents Labour policy in 1950. Well, it certainly did in 1949, for in his preface to a new edition of his book the Prime Minister writes: "I believe now as firmly as ever in the principles and methods of democratic Socialism which I have tried to set forth in this book." Methods as well as principles ; that seems categorical enough. * * * "This Treasury surplus of £616,000,000 means simply that Sir Stafford, as Chancellor, has by taxation taken from the pockets of the people £616,000,000 more than he needed to meet Government expenditure."—Lord Beveridge at Lowestoft.
Lord Beveridge added that most people would think they could spend their share of the £616,000,000 better than the Government could use it. He seems to forget that "the man in Whitehall knows best."
Two predictions that seem worth putting on record:
(1) "We are going to have a Liberal Prime Minister, with Liberal M.P.s returned in sufficient force to form a Govern- ment."—Mr. Edgar Granville. February 17th.
(2) "The General Election will see the end of the Tory Party as we know it now.--Mr. Aneurin Bet .an at Ebbw Vale.
Previous page
