Con. or Lab. ?
The chief need, after all, is less to remove the present Government from office than to begin the process whereby the two-party hold on the politi- cal life of the country is prised open. There is nothing inherently bad in the two-party system; what is bad is how it is now working towards self- perpetuation, encouraging dishonesty and self- deception by letting them masquerade as party loyalty; compelling members to shut off the voice of conscience; and insidiously destroying Parliament's reputation. Nobody imagines that the voters at this election can do much to break the hold, but at least they could loosen it slightly— enough to make more effective protest possible during the life of the next Parliament—and that is what chiefly matters.
There remain those constituencies where no Liberal is standing. It may seem futile to suggest a vote for the candidate, rather than the party, when we have been arguing that the party MP is Whipped and helpless. But there are quite a few candidates who contrive to do good at Westmin- ster—our three contributors last week, for example. It is impossible to go through the list systematically, but every elector owes it to himself to take a look at his candidates, and if possible to inquire about their record, before making his choice.
And where there is no choice? Where, say, a trade union hack is opposing a -Suez Grouper? On balance, and- with some reluctance, we can only recommend a vote against the Government candidate. Reluctance, because we do not like the idea of a Labour Government. But the idea that people in Africa, in Cyprus—in any part of the world, in fact—should be left with the impression that the British people con- done what has been done by this Government in their name is too much. A Labour Government will have scorpions in store; but they can be borne if, by submitting to them, we can show the Con- servatives that the community will no longer tolerate the dishonour of the past four years.
Previous page
