THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1931. THE BRITISH ELECTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 21007, 19 October 1931, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1931. THE BRITISH ELECTION.

Nominations have closed, for the British elections with 1286 candidates offering for disputed seats, and, on the latest available information, GO unopposed returns. The candidates are much fewer than in the last general election, that of 1929, when 1730 were offering. The unopposed returns are far more numerous, for there were only seven then, four Conservatives, including the Speaker, who is traditionally allowed this concession, and three Irish Nationalists. Both circumstances can be attributed in some degree to the rapid development of events leading to the election, and to the shortness of the campaign. Still, as there remain 516 constituencies where members must be chosen, and as the nominations exceed 1200, the brief, sharp contest has not robbed the elector very seriously of his right to decide the issue. It is interesting to note how far the efforts to avoid vote-splitting have succeeded. There are 410 straight-out contests compared with only 94 in 1929. The three-cornered contests have been reduced from 444 to 99, while in 26 electorates four candidates are offering. These figures account for 535 of the 54i3 seats in which there are contests. No doubt the complication of two-member constituencies prevents a statement covering jail contests being possible. The simplification of the issue is considerable, seeing that the names of parties or groups have multiplied so much since 1929. Then there were five classifications, Conservative. Labour, Liberal, Communists and others. Now there are eight, including three Labour and at least two Liberal groups. With it all, the nation lias been given a general opportunity of choosing between the supporters and the opponents of the National Government. Despite the appearance of new party-groups—a significant commentary on what can generally bo expected when a combination of Parliamentary forces, whether called coalition, fusion or by any other name, is formed—there should be less room for complaint about votesplitting than there was in 1929. The Liberals, who, on a bare analysis of the figures, suffered most, were loudly critical of the electoral system which allowed such things to happen. In consequence of their urgings the Labour Party, in office very tepid about reform—the fact that the dissection of votes suggested Labour had profited handsomely from threecornered contests may have been a coincidence —agreed to introduce the alternative vote. The bill to effect this was left in a state of suspended animation when Parliament went into recess at the end of July. It had been passed by the House of Commons, and amended by the Lords. The Commons had not considered these amendments at the rising of Parliament, and naturally the very brief emergency session afforded no opportunity of altering the electoral system. Therefore the new Parliament will be returned by the old method, but with the complications of 1929 very materially reduced. All the parties, it happens, have fewer candidates, except the Communists, who have produced the same number, 25. The Conservatives have 517 against 585. There are 558 accepting the name Labour, but divided into three sections. The Liberals, who sponsored 512 candidates in 1929, now have but 160. They also are divided into two groups by the breakaway of Sir John Simon and his associates, if not into more because of the attitude Mr. j Lloyd George has adopted. Yet, under all lies the one fundamental issue, the one on which the Labour Government fell, and the party suffered disruption. Labour in politics seems peculiarly liable to party disintegration in the face of emergency; at least it does in British countries. Australia has provided several examples of this tendency, and now in Britain the same thing has happened. In this instance the larger wing of the party, that which Mr. Henderson leads, has in fact, and by confession abandoned the mine and become the Socialist Party. There was no need for Mr. Henderson to have stated this in so many words, as he did a little while ago. The speech he made at the opening of the emergency session was a plain enough intimation of the fact. It is stated that the Socialist Party has lost most of the support from people who are neither Labour nor Socialist that placed the Labour Government in its superior tactical position in 1929. This is simply a forecast which will be tested when polling day comes next week. It is, however, credible enough. In spite of the rise of the Labour movement since the war, in spite of its having paid lip service to Socialism, there have been repeated emphatic denials that the British people are at heart inclined to Socialism in its Continental sense. Though the industrial unions are declared to comprise the chief force behind Mr. Henderson and his party, it has also been denied that the rank and file of the industrial Labour movement are really Socialist. Dogged individualism, combined with a strong sense of nationality, have been British characteristics ever since the n.-ition acquired a corporate voice. Having endured for many generations, have these fundamentals of the national character disappeared in a couple of decades? Next week will supply the answer. The conditions of the election make this possible in a very direct way.