ELECTION NOTES
IN the dispute between Conservatives and Liberals about the right of the latter to exclusive use of the name they have always been known by, common justice as well as common sense appears to be with the Liberals. In spite of all gradations, -the terms Socialist, Conservative and Liberal mean something definite, and nothing is to be gained by mixing them up. The case for preserving the separate identity of the National Liberals is very thin. Much as they merit respect, particularly the small band of them in the House of Commons, the difference between them and an average Conservative, certainly a Left-wing Conservative, is quite invisible to the naked eye. It is difficult to remember a single case (probably because there is not a single case) in which they have voted in any but the Conservative lobby. Their individuality as a party is due to history, not to doctrine, and it is getting rather ancient history now. As for the Independent Liberals, they have a strong case against the authors of the Conservative-Liberal or Liberal-Conservative label, and Mr. Clement Davies in his letter to Mr. Churchill makes it well. There is only one reservation Local option in such matters must be recognised. If there are cases—it is not quite clear whether there are—where. the local Liberals definitely and officially, through their established organisation, decide to make common cause with the Conservatives, then in that constituency the adoption of a name denoting the alliance would seem reasonable. Liberal headquarters would presumably concede that.
* * * * The reference, in Mr. Churchill's reply to Mr. Clement Davies, to "the six or seven members you may have in the new Parliament" is just a little more than a good-humoured hit. About six represents the Conservatives' and Socialists' estimate of the Liberal strength in the new House ; the Liberals' own estimate, needless to say, is very different. The number six is based on the assumption— probably wrong—that the Liberals will win no new seats. They at present hold ten, but one is a University constituency (Welsh), which disappears. Of the other nine members, two seem certain to be defeated, and at least two others will have the fight of their lives On this basis six seems about the likely figure. But the basis itself is very questionable. There is no reason at all why the Liberals should not win a few new seats. The return of Sir Archibald Sinclair, itl particular, for Caithness and Sutherland seems probable.
* * * * A suggestion here last week that all the industries threatened with nationalisation, except Messrs. Tate & Lyle, had (as a result of Mr. Morrison's menaces) covered up their posters and toned down their campaigns appears to have gone a little beyond the faCts. The Iron and Steel Federation at any rate is continuing its campaign in more ways than one, and has no idea of lowering its by no means tattered flag on a far from stricken field. Nor, it would seem, has effective defensive strategy been abandoned in other quarters. All things considered, the odds against further nationalisation look longer than they have for some time.
* * * * "Britons who flatter themselves that the General Election is going to bring us the biggest invasion of American newspaper men since the Normandy D-day are likely to be disillusioned."—News Chronicle, January 20th.
"All foreign correspondents seem agreed that there has never been such a demand from their home offices for news about a General Election here."—Manchester Guardian, January 201h.
"The expected rush of newspapermen and radio commentators from all over the world to cover the General Election has begun. The American radio men are getting in first."—Daily Herald, lanubry 20th.
* * * * What happens to the £150 forfeited deposits ? They go to the- Treasury all of them. By the time the Chancellor of the Exchequer has secured them all at the end of February he ought to be in a position to reduce the income-tax. Sir Hartley Shawcross was talking on the middle class at Birken- head on Monday. "I suppose," he said (with some reason), "I shall be accused of wooing them. But after all I belong to them. . . . In the long run the interests of the middle class are really tied more closely to the well-being of the mass of the people than to that of the wealthy and property-owning minority." Well, who are this minority and how many of them are there ? Sir Hartley gives a clear indication. He belongs to the middle-class. The wealthy minority, therefore, must consist of people wealthier than he is. Sir Hartley's official income is £10,000 a year, and no doubt he has private means. But let it go at £10,000. How many people are there in the country with incomes larger than that ? The Annual Abstract of Statistics supplies the answer. There are ten thousand, according to the latest figures, ten thousand out of a popu- lation of 50,000,000. Is that really worth gunning for—particularly since " property-owning " usually means not drawing money from property but spending money on it ?
* * * * The appeal of Lord Hankey and nine other signatories for the formation of a Coalition Government would have been more oppor- tune if it could have been made, as originally intended, in the House of Lords before the Dissolution At this particular moment it can hope for scant response from the personalities most concerned. Both Labour and Conservative leaders have declared categorically that they will look at no such thing. That in itself is not a fatal obstacle. It is perfectly possible, as Sir Stafford Cripps knows, to insist that you will not do a thing and then do it. But unless the situation—which heaven forfend—gets so desperate that a com- pletely new start is imperative, the gulf between the parties will remain much too wide to be bridged. The Socialists cannot drop their nationalisation programme. The Conservatives cannot look at it. There is no room here for any sort of compromise—unless, once more, everything has to give way to an overwhelming menace.
* * * * The straw-polls on the election, for what they are worth, are getting interesting. The Daily Express published the results of its own investigation on Monday. It gave the Conservatives 48 per cent, of the total vote (which is just about what Labour got in 1945), Labour 42 per cent. and Liberals 9 per cent. The News Chronicle has still to issue its detailed figures, but it has mentioned that they show the Conservatives to have reduced their lead from 4 per cent. to 24- per cent. Since the Express poll gave the Conser- vatives 54 per cent, of the total last October, against 48 per cent. now, both the Tory and the Liberal organs agree that Labour is pulling up. But a great deal may happen between now and February 23rd.
* * * * While the rival parties are at odds on most things they might strike accord on one—a ban on loud-speakers. No citizens should annoy other citizens unnecessarily, and loud-speakers are most accursedly annoying ; in the open-air, moreover, they usually make merely a confused and unintelligible noise. Brighton Labour Party has suggested a ban on them in Brighton, and all honour to it. Conservatives can hardly afford to add support of cacophony to their programmes.
* * * * "Although the labour Party held a majority in Parliament, many more people voted against them than for them. It could hardly be said therefore that the country gave a mandate for revolutionary changes."—Mr. Alfred Edwards, M.P. (elected as Labour, standing as Conservative). * * * * After a controversy in its columns on sugar nationalisation between Lord Lyle and Mr. Michael Young, of the Labour Research Department, the News Chronicle states that it has received a large number of letters on the subject, roughly 3 to 1 in favour of "Mr. Cube." Only a straw—but still.
Previous page
