THE BRIGHTON ELECTION
Sia,—Of the Brighton election (but before polling) " Janus " writes: "Personally, I find his (the Prime Minister's) argument convincing . . . And I can understand the Prime Minister's assessment of candidates who, while opposing the Government candidate, declare that they are strong supporters of the head of the Government. 'Swindle' may be a rather strong word to apply to such an attitude."
The word "swindle," applied in this case, is not strong so much as violent, abusive, untrue and probably libellous. The Times says: "The Independent Candidate's poll of 12,635, after the Prime Minister's intervention . . was impressive. . . . The Independent Candidate was a local man of repute . . ." and The Times describes the result as "a vigorous expression of the feelings and interests of a front-line' com- munity undeviating in its loyalty to war-time leadership but ready to assert an independent view of its own requirements."
So, according to "Janus," a man of high repute, of undeviating loyalty to the Prime Minister's war-time leadership, but holding independent views on other matters, is to be described as a swindler and " Janus " can understand the "Prime Minister's assessment of" the Independent can- didate. I, also, can understand it, and my conclusion is that it is in- tolerable to any better breed of Briton than "Yes-men," and that it leaves an echo of the crunching of the heavy-booted Hun.
The Party Truce is dying of its own clumsy ineptness. If it were not, the swindler whip would kill it. Any attempt to maintain it, with all its implications, would endanger that loyalty to war-time leadership which now holds together in a common effort men of diverse political faiths.—
Previous page
