British Election THIN MAJORITY DEPLORED

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30575, 19 October 1964, Page 13

British Election THIN MAJORITY DEPLORED

(N.Z. Press Association —Copyright) LONDON, October 18.

Britain “could hardly have done worse,” “The Times” said yesterday, commenting on the result of Britain’s General Election.

“The nation’s indecisive and regionally various verdict has ushered in the probability of a Labour Government paralysed by a hopelessly thin majority, a Conservative Party too entangled in the tactics of Opposition to sort out the large questions that beset it, and postponement of the resolute reform that the economy of this country requires,” said the newspaper.

“The Times” said it was Mr Wilson’s “unenviable task to make a go of it.

“He will be heading the four-majority Labour Administration, returned by a percentage of the aggregate poll that is only a fraction larger than his party’s share five years ago, having an absolute majority in the Commons almost at vanishing point and dependent for its day to day viability on the forbearance of a tiny group of Liberal M.P.s which grossly under-repre-sents the popular Liberal vote.”

The “Financial Times” said the new Government, with its “tiny majority” in Parliament would need all the support it could get from the Conservatives and the Liberals. “It will deserve to obtain that support on one condition —that it is clearly out to serve the interests of the country as a whole and not that of any particular minority.”

The Right-wing “Daily Sketch” said: “Labour will be judged by what they do for the nation as a whole and not by sectional or party considerations.”

The “Daily Express” said Mr Wilson’s “weakness” in Parliament need not weigh too heavily.

“If he abstains from unpopular, controversial measures—like the renationalisation of steel—if he concentrates on urgent, practical national issues, then he can be

sure of all the support he needs in Parliament.” Mr Wilson’s first task was plainly written in Britain’s trade gap, the newspaper added. The “Guardian” said Labour’s majority was “too small for comfort.” But Labour had won and it could govern. Labour had been elected because it had a creative programme. It had offered a fresh approach to economic growth, efficiency, and prosperity. It had offered social justice as the basis of an incomes policy, which in turn was a means towards restraining inflation.

Two British Sunday newspapers today called on Sir Alec Douglas-Home to step down from the leadership of

the Conservative Party. The “Sunday Times," which supported the Conservatives during the election campaign, said in an editorial: “His appeal was strongest with the faithful and weakest with the doubtful. His lack of knowledge of home affairs could not be hidden from the electorate, and that made it very hard for the Conservatives to represent themselves as the modernising party. “We . . . would not desire him to fight another election.” A columnist in the Rightwing “Sunday Express” said Sir Alec Douglas Home seemed “an anchronism.” If he led the Conservative Party into the next election the Labour Party would be looking for a majority of 100 seats.