ELECTION POSSIBILITIES
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Snt,—It is not possible accurately to foresee exactly what form the post- war general election will take. But the election may be upon us sooner than we think, and it is opportune to review the various alternatives, examine their merits and endeavour to find out what politically-minded electors are thinking. Four possible alternatives calling for consideration at once present themselves to the mind.
Firstly, a coalition election of a somewhat similar pattern to that of 1918. The Prime Minister has given a very clear indication that his leaning is in this direction. He favours a post-war National Government elected on a four-years plan, hammered out and agreed in detail by the leaders of the three main parties prior to the election. This would seem to postulate a coupon election similar to that of 1918, with a division of seats between the parties beforehand and the avoidance of conflict between " coupon " candidates of whatever party. The great and well deserved prestige of Mr. Churchill may make such an election not only possible but highly successful. As in 1918, it may well result in a large National Government majority, with the Tory Party predominating, and a small divided and ineffective Opposition. Presumably, as in 1918 and after, the coupon would continue to operate in all by-elections during the life of that Parliament. Such an election would split the Labour Party and deprive a large body of electors of freedom of choice. Adherents of the three parties would be urged by their leaders to support and vote for candidates of other parties on the supposition that they were all striving for the same thing and that so far as the programme before the electors was concerned there was really no difference either in principle or outlook between them. The Prime Minister's great and inspiring leadership during the war would be used for all it was worth, together with all the slogans and catch phrases which the joint election machinery could turn out. Any independent Liberal who sat in the 1918-1922 Parliament, in fact any Liberal without prefix or suffix, inside or outside the House, will oppose such an election as a sham and a fraud.
The second alternative is an election fought on a programme endorsed by the leaders of the three main parties, but with each party fighting separately in as many constituencies as it cared to contest. The advantage of this alternative is that it would give the electors freedom of choice to work and vote for their own party candidates and would undoubtedly result in a House more truly reflecting the strength of the Parties in the country. It is also likely that the Tory Party would not have a majority, or at any rate a very small one, over the other two parties combined, and the agreed programme on which the votes were cast would haVe a much better chance of fulfilment.
But human nature being what it is, could such an election in fact be fought without the acrimony, bitterness and personalities which inevitably crop up at election times? Candidates may mix metaphors, but in the heat of an election they seldom mince words, and it is not easy to envisage an harmonious National Government formed hot on the heels of the wordy warfare of the hustings. A cooling-down period would be necessary, entailing a long delay at a time when delay would be disastrous.
The third alternative would be a stand-up fight between the Labour and Tory Parties, each putting forward its own programme. In fact, a good old-fashioned election on party lines with no question of a coalition after the election. In such an election the Liberal Party, -divided as it has been since 1916 and contesting at most some 15o seats, would be amongst the " also rans," for unless and until it puts its own house in order it cannot expect to be trusted with the much greater task of running the country. There are many who will favour this course because it is the most honest and straightforward, the most simple and direct, and it would at any rate reveal where each party stands and what it stands for.
The fourth alternative is a straight fight between the Tory Party and a Central party, the latter based on a working arrangement between the Labour Party and a United Liberal Party, both as to policy and the allocation of seats. This is the most unlikely of the alternatives. Unlikely because the Labour Party has shown time and again that it would rather play poker with the Tories than cricket with the Liberals. This may seem a somewhat sweeping statement, but it really, needs no further amplification or proof than can be found in the case of Sir Stafford Cripps, who was expelled because of his Centre Party activities. Unlikely, because the Liberal Party, without effective organisation, and devoid of funds, has nothing to bargain with. But surely it is true that such a grouping, if once accomplished, would receive a very large body of support from the country, would attract many of the younger Tories and Inde- pendents, and could reasonably expect either in office or in opposition to play a decisive part in the political arena and the moulding of post-war legislation. To a life-long Liberal with some experience of elections and electioneering this last alternative has a strong appeal. It would unite the Liberal Party, rally Liberals throughout the country and, with a large and growing following, enable the Party once again to serve the nation as it did in the proud days of Gladstone, Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith. There is no real future for Liberals or the Liberal Party under the first two alternatives except perhaps for a few place hunters, and if the last alternative be merely a piece of wishful thinking, then let all good Liberals plump for the old-fashioned party fight and pray that the Party will reform its ranks in the refreshing, if rarefied, air of the wilder-
Previous page
