Evening Post. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1923. PARTY VOTING

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 140, 11 December 1923, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1923. PARTY VOTING

An interesting analysis of the party voting in the British General Election is given by the Secretary of the Proportional Representation Society.

If proportional representation had operated in the 548 contested seats, tne Conservatives would, he says, have won 207 instead of 214, Labour 168 instead of 186, the Liberals 164 instead of 139, and the Independents nine instead of six."

The three outstanding points in these figures are the close approximation of the strength of the Conservatives to what a scientific system of representation would have given them, the heavy gains of Labour from the chances of the existing system, and the still heavier losses of the Liberals. The Conservatives got seven more seats than they were entitled to, the Labour Party twenty-one more, and the Liberals twenty-five less. In the case of the Conservatives, the discrepancy of about 3 per cent, is nothing to worry about, but as between the two democratic parties the net effect of the double error is grossly mieleading. 'According to the official returns, Labour has beaten the Liberals "hands down," but if the principle of '' one vote, one value" had been consistently applied, the Liberals would have been seen to be running a neck-and-neck race with Labour. Instead of Labour's scoring 189 to the Liberals' 139, the figures would have been 168 and 164, and the Liberals' lead in uncontested seats would have enabled them to wipe out this small shortage and become the Official Opposition. It is perhaps of greater importance that, instead of securing nearly a third of the seats, Labour's strength would have been reduced to little more than a fourth. -

Though, as we have said, proportional representation would have made no substantial change in the Conservatives' total, the freaks of the present system are admirably illustrated by a comparison of their position to-day with what it was a year ago. Those who regard the Conservatives as having been #wept away by a great rise: iri the popular tide will be astonished to find that, measured by the votes cast, the Conservatives • have hardly gone back an inch on the figures which gave them their striking victory last year. It is indeed a moat remarkable coincidence that both the number of contested seats and. the proportion of them which an accurate systems of representation would have given to the Conservatives are almost exactly the same now as they were then. The number of contested seats in 1922 was 547 ; last week it was 548. The number of seats ti which the Conservatives were entitled on the voting last year was 808; last -week it was 207. The idea of a great popular yevujision of feeling which has so profoundly impressed the imagination of Great Britain and of her friends and enemies abroad is thus proved by the unanswerable logic of the figures to be a matter of the imagination and not of the intellect. Why, then, were the Conservatives adjudged to have won a great victory in 1922, and to have been badly smashed last week? The answer is that by the freaks of an absurd electoral system they were given a bonus of nearly 50 per cent, when the seats were allotted, and so their 208 contested seats were increased to 396, but that on this occasion the bonus has been negligible. They won the elections by a 40 per cent, vote in 1922. An almost identical vote has lost them the election? of 1923.

Speculation as to the moral of these figures for the politicians, both of Great Britain ant} of this country, is cut short by the important news which comes to hand as we write. The week-end, of course, found the Conservative leaders very busy, and some light is thrown on their deliberations by a "Daily Mail " report. Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Amery, and Sir P. Lloyd Greame are mentioned as the three Ministers who took the leading part in urging- the appeal to the country on the question of Protection. In the' same Die-hard spirit which was faithfully reflected in the "Morning Post's" article reported yesterday, these Ministers have now, according to the " Daily Mail," advised Mr, Baldwin to resign and to advise the King to send for Mr. Ramsay Maodonald. The rumour that Mr. Baldwin is consenting to this course is said to have so excited the other Ministers that " they have decided that if Mr. Baldwin adopted it they would dissociate themselves from it and publicly explain their reasops." Thiß reported conflict between a majority of the Cabinet and an aggressive minority who have the Prime Minister's ear give 3 the first clear indication of the dissensions which preceded his unfortunate decision, and have in-

evitably been aggravated by defeat. - Is the decision which reunited the Liberals going to split the hitherto admirably disciplined Conservative Party?

The majority of the Ministers are said to believe thatvfche best course would be that the Government shpuld continue under a new leader, and, if that is so, it is.difficult to see how Mr. Baldwin can refuse to comply with their wishes. If they think that they can best carry on without him, he can hardly take the responsibility of saying that he prefers to sink the ship, nor is he a leader of that ambitious and egotistical type which might be tempted to do so Mr. Austen Chamberlain is suggested as the new leader, and at least the " benevolent neutrality " of the Liberals is believed to be tentatively assured. The name of Coalition certainly assails the British nostril with a very evil odour just now, but how long could a minority party expect to govern with no more solid help than benevolent neutrality from another minority unrepresented in its Cabinet? "The Time ß " urges Mr. Baldwin to resign neither the Premiership nor the leadership of the party before he has faced Parliament, but on the bearings of either move on the possibility of Conservative and Liberal co-operation it has nothing to say. .