Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1945. AWAITING THE COUNT.

Greymouth Evening Star, 26 July 1945, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1945. AWAITING THE COUNT.

interest is being taken in the counting to-day of the votes cast in tin* British general elections, earlier this month, as the result must influence international policy, as well as the domestic politics of Britain. Most of the forecasts have predicted a win for the Conservatives, but as many of these prophets are supporters of Dlr. Churchill and his Party, their wish perhaps fathered the estimate. The secrecy of the ballot prevents reliable prophecies, but experienced election-agents and organisers may reasonably estimate the chances, after taking note of the voters and of district public opinion, generally. The millions of new electors, this July, however, may upset orthodox calculations. In any case, paiience has not much longer to be preserved.

Strongly differing as to means, the Homeland political parties agree as to the end, and that is to make Britain •brighter and happier. To that degree it does not mailer whether Conservatives or Labour win. although the usual optimism about the future from the victors and laments by the defeated, must be expected. Britain has more generous ideas regarding

party polities than have most other lands, including New Zealand. Britain’s Conservatives and Labourites, fiercely as they differ in opinions on many topics, accompany each" other on missions abroad, and in time of national emergency, form a Coalition Government. Contrast this with the narrow views of New Zealand’s present Government, which excludes the Opposition’s co-operation, Where possible. It may be that this Dominion is right and Britain wrong, but it was the latter’s real national unity that enabled her to stand firm against the Nazi hordes. In administrative ideals and standards, Britain" has little to learn from her Overseas partners. There was keen competition to be elected to the new House of Commons, but for most of the candidates, it must have been mainly a sense of. duty moi e than Ihe prospect of monetary reward, or even increased social prestige, that prompted them to offer their services. In one of the last sittings by the previous House during a discussion on the scale of Ministers and members’ salaries and expenses Mr. .Montague (Labour) said there was not a member in the House who could live on his £6OO a year. In his ease after deduction of tax he received about £B/10/a week. Out of this he paid over £2 in postage, between 15/- and £1 on travelling' and £2 on meals in the House. After constituency expenses had been paid his net income was under £3 a week from Parliament. It was not a dustman’s wage.

Compare this with the remuneration oi members of the United States House of: Representatives, whose salary is £2.500 a year, and who recently voted themselves an additional £625 a year expenses, tax free. When this bill came before the Senate Appropriations Commitlee that body amended it io include a similar sum tor Senators, whose salary is the .4ame as that of Representatives. It is clear that the amount of remuneration received has little bearing' on the quality of the legislation passed, as .few outside the U.S.A. — and perhaps not many within —claim that the highly-paid Congressmen are superior in that respect to the lowly-paid Commoners. Whatever the result of to-day s counting in the British elections, confidence may be felt in the future of the country, be comments by the defeated ever so unquiet.