The Evening Post. WELLINGTON, SATURDAY, JUNE 23 1945.

Evening Post, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 147, 23 June 1945, Page 6

The Evening Post. WELLINGTON, SATURDAY, JUNE 23 1945.

ARTIFICIALITY ON THE PLATFORM

When three or four parties contest a General Election, every one of them bids for power. It may be that, for years prior to the General Election, two or three of the parties combined m a Coalition whose main aim was the winning of an only half-finished war If that be the case—and it is actually the case in Britain—the various candidates (Conservative, Labour, Liberal) may well be somewhat perplexed as to whether they should pull their . punches, and in what degree their punches^ should be pulled. To probe this question in detail, consider in the first place the Big Five veto." British Labour Ministers who, ' during the life of the National (Coalition) Government, supported, or did not oppose, the Dumbarton Oaks Plan cannot consistently join in the democratic attack on the veto witnessed at San Francisco; and, as far as current reports show, they do not do so. Secondly, take the policy of the British Government in India, which has attracted a great deal of pseudo-democratic criticism in various parts of the world. Mr. Herbert Morrison, the Labour stalwart who till recently was Home Secretary in the National Government (that is, in the Coalition), cannot consistently punch the Wavell Plan; and far from doing so, he has prodded the Indian parties to "do something about it." These two instances, and many others, show that over a large area of external policy the three main parties now fighting in the electoral ring simply cannot punch one another. On such issues, their recent past forces them into agreement. And not' only are they constrained by their recent past. The very near —but unpredictable —future, may see the creation by the British electors of a House of Commons so balanced in party strength that the winning of the Japanese war —with which India is closely related —will compel another Coalition of all the parties to form a new National Government for warwinning. The ground (external common policy) for such a Coalition is already there; but a new National Government may require a new compromise on domestic policy.

Under the shadow of past (Coalition) events, and of "coming events that cast a shadow before," the leading Labour and Liberal opponents of the Churchill Government are to that extent disarmed; and all their followers should feel the same influence. Yet it is natural that some followers in all the parties feel the individual impulse to win a seat in the House of Commons by platform fireworks just as much as they feel the collective impulse to remember both the Coalitions (the recently dead and the still unborn) and to preserve in wartime an atmosphere that will make the next House "safe for democracy" in the sense of being "safe for Coalition." For what would it profit a hotspur candidate to gain a whole seat in the House of Commons, and yet sacrifice the soul of national defence? Nevertheless, some candidates may think they see profit in such an individual course, holding that the electoral platform is a place not for pulled punches but for heavy swipes. Whether bitter fighting of this kind among members of the recently coalesced * parties has occurred on a large scale the reports do not show, but the reference of "The Times" to "the old-fashioned melodrama of party,, polemics" suggests that, in the opinion of that newspaper, the ardour of some of the' fighters has carried them beyond the limits of a Coalitionshadowed wartime General Election. Warning against such "artificiality in electioneering," "The Times" comments: "The electorate is well aware that the new House of Commons will have no less need than its predecessor to preserve a co-operative temper by which legislation and administration of a truly national character are fostered, and that mutual vituperation over tactical issues is not a substitute for genuine, useful contentions over national policy."

Those who resort on the electoral platform to artificial war may find some difficulty in changing direction on the morning after the polling if they wake up to find that the real war, and the balance of parties in the new House of Cpmmons, compel them to begin an urgent search for all that is common ground between the parties, and to make an effort to forget differences—artificial or real—that are subordinate to war-winning. After the General Election, first things must again be first, and some candidates may find that their platform punches are either wasted or survive as embarrassing memories. Not for a moment can the twin shadows of war and wartime co-operation be exorcised.