ELECTION NOTES T HIS has been a distinctly good week for
the Conservatives. On the radio, Lord Woolton and Dr. Hill have left Miss Herbison and Mr. Bevin nowhere. Miss Herbison was too light a weight, the Foreign Secretary too immeasurably heavy. On the other side everyone knew that the Radio Doctor was a master
of microphone technique, but Lord Woolton showed how sur- prisingly little he had to learn in that field either. On the platform, Mr. Churchill has remembered (what he has occasionally forgotten) that he is a statesman, and has spoken like one. His carefully guarded challenge on petrol manifestly discomfited his opponents, and his expression at Edinburgh of what millions have been think- ing about a new approach to Russia on atomic warfare', while a perfectly proper repetition of what he had already said in the House of Commons, will undoubtedly have electoral effect. For Labour, the Prime Minister has worked valiantly and spoken well, but the platform is not his spiritual home, and he can hardly hope to set anything on fire. There remains Sir Stafford Cripps, who since his misleading broadcast on devaluation and his flagrant mis- statement regarding the Tories' intention to abolish food subsidies has considerably jeopardised his chief asset, a reputation for in- tegrity. And now that he has seen fit to borrow his vocabulary from Mr. Bevan and his gibes (" the old man has never had the slightest appreciation of peace-time economics ") from Mr. Morri- son, his party must find it hard to determine whether he helps or hurts.
The main interest of Lord Beaverbrook's return to this country in time for the hottest phase of the election campaign lay in the possibility that he might once again secure the ear of Mr. Churchill, and incite him to such performances as those which in 1945 did so much to ruin Tory hopes. It soon became clear that Lord Beaverbrook himself was also attracted by that possibility. Flatter- ing references to Mr. Churchill's fighting spirit, and gleeful references to the alleged consternation at Conservative Party head- quarters at his Lordship's return bore witness to a conviction that it is as important to make the party bright as to keep it clean. There was no need to pay much attention to this. Lord Beaverbrook has been underestimating the public's intelligence for years and he is unlikely to stop doing it in the middle of a General Election. But when the fatal phrases began to appear in Mr. Churchill's speeches —the Socialist " plot for power," the abortive removal of sweets rationing as a " put-up job "—the possibility once more emerged that the influence of Lord Beaverbrook was at work. It may not be so. In any case if the Tories and their leader want to avoid a precipice it had better not be so. " Winston without Max " for 1950.
The public opinion polls on the election continue. They have some interest and possibly some value. But there is one fact which vitiates them almost completely. In every case the percentage representing the people who don't yet know how they will vote, or else won't tell, is considerably larger than the percentage which separates the party at the head of the poll from the runner-up. Only if the " don't knows " represented something less than the distance between first and second could the poll be taken really seriously.
* * * A candidate has announced that if elected he will, in the present stress, not accept more of his £1,000 a year Parliamentary salary than he needs for legitimate expenses. That is an example which had much better not be followed. In the first place it is largely an empty gesture, for most M.P.s find that little of the salary remains when legitimate expenses have been met. In the second it places at an obvious disadvantage candidates who, if elected, could not live without the salary. It is known that a few M.P.s with means of their own have not in the recent past been drawing their salaries, but it is regarded as a point of honour not to blazon the fact abroad. • What does Labour really want ? Mr. Morrison has given the anodyne assurance that 80 per cent. of industry is still being left in private hands. Another Minister has declared categorically that Labour does not intend to nationalise the land. But what would a new Labour Government be likely to go for ? There has been no more authoritative statement of the general aims of Labour than is contained in Mr. Attlee's book The Labour Party in Perspective, first published in 1937 ; the writer, it need hardly be said, is anything but an extremist. Here, first, is the broad objective : - " The aim of the Labour Party is the establishment of the Co- operative Commonwealth. Its object, expressed in the Party con- stitution, is ' to secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service '."
There is not much suggestion of a halt at 80 per cent. here. As to land (on p. 152): "Land will be owned by the community, not by private individuals "; (on p. 181) " The Labour Party stands for national ownership of the land." That was written in 1937 by the present Prime Minister. It seems very necessary to know whether it represents Labour policy in 1950.
The dispute between Mr. Churchill and Mr. Ness Edwards on the question whether Mr. Churchill sent troops to Tonypandy in 1910 is not of supreme importance, but it is a point on which contemporary evidence is of some value. The Spectator wrote on November 12th, 1910: " On Tuesday the riots became more general and more violent. Troops were sent from Salisbury Plain in response to a request from the Chief Constable of Glamorganshire. These, however, were stopped before they reached the spot by Mr. Churchill, who sent down a force of London policemen instead." * * * * " During the last four years this country has tackled the greatest job that has ever been tackled by any people in the world. Never has such a record been put up by this country," said Sir Stafford Cripps. He said it on February 10th, 1950, not, as a few Service- men and others might have thought, in 1945. But whenever,
wherever, and by whomsoever this particular bouquet had been presented, its colours would seem a little garish and its smell a
trifle suspicious. * * * *
The Prime Minister thinks that in the matter of handling food Lord Woolton shows a complete failure to grasp. the essential conditions of the modern world. Mr. Attlee seems to be catching from the youthful President of the Board of Trade the engaging knack of teaching business men their business. Lord Woolton has built up one of the greatest businesses of its kind in the country
—but it appears that when it comes to buying and selling he is now a back number. Was it a back number performance that he put up as Minister of Food from 1940 to 1943 ?
* * * Mr. Jay, in contradicting Lord Woolton, confirms him. Lord Woolton, like many people before him, quoted Mr. Jay as saying that " the man in Whitehall knows best." Mr. Jay now protests indignantly that he only said the men in Whitehall knew best about nutrition and health and education. Only that ? It seems enough to be going on with. * * * * The Conservative candidate for Wallasey drove to the nomination- centre in a victoria and dressed in a Regency costume. The Conservative candidate for Stafford and Stone hr.s been touring
his constituency in the coach-and-four. Do they really want to seem to be living in a bygone age ?
Previous page
