THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, May 23, 1945. AN ELECTION IN BRITAIN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25851, 23 May 1945, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES Wednesday, May 23, 1945. AN ELECTION IN BRITAIN

It would be premature to say that in the pattern of British politics today, as compared with that of the Great War period, history is repeating itself. But the same stresses are again becoming evident, and the same correcting influence, of a general election, is the obvious remedy. The Liberal Government, which later became a Liberal-Coali-tion, remained in office from 1910 throughout the years of the Great War, the life of Parliament being extended by special legislation for three years beyond its expiry date. The Parliament which was elected, in 1935 remains in existence, nine years and six months later, having extended its life by legislation for nearly double its legal term, with the time of its dissolution not yet definitely apparent. But the British Labour Party’s very emphatic decision that the coalition is not to be continued until the war with Japan is over has signed the death knell of this long Parliament. The revelation that Mr Churchill recently approached the Labour Party and the two Liberal organisations with a proposal that the coalition should be retained until Japan’s defeat was achieved may have surprised some elements in Great Britain. In his previous statements in reference to the prolonged life of the Parliament he had suggested that he would want an early election after the war with Germany came to an end. But the member nations of, the United Nations, particularly those such as Australia and New Zealand, which have special interests in the Pacific basin, may appreciate the British Prime Minister’s anxiety not to provoke the distractions of a general election in Great Britain while there is a big war undertaking still to be done. His concern is probably needless. Important democracies, including the United States, have experienced the mild upheavals of elections in times militarily more critical than to-day. Mr Churchill’s alternative proposal that the British people should be asked to decide by referendum whether they wish to retain the coalition is no doubt based equally on his manifest dislike to a disturbance of the continuity of war direction. He is, however, likely to find not only organised Labour, but much of public opinion, in favour of an appeal to the country. After ten years’ life, during the last five of which, from jnid-1940, it has functioned under Mr Churchill with unaccustomed rubber-stamp docility, the British Parliament is doubtless in need of rejuvenation. Most of the considerable number of by-elections of these years have been coupon elections, with the odds stacked very heavily, under the party truce, in favour of the candidate whose party had held the seat. It is not a criticism of the type of Administration which, under Mr Churchill’s dominant direction, has brought Great Britain through her most severe crisis, to say that with the danger to the realm removed it is necessary to restore the processes of democratic government, of which the keystone is the regular submission of all policies to the people, at the earliest possible moment. Labour’s objection to July ,as the time of an election which now looms as inevitable is probably self-interested. There appears to be no reason why an election should not be conducted equitably with a large absentee service _vote, although New Zealand’s experience in that respect was far from satisfactory. If the effect of the election, with its campaigning excitements, is to weaken the British war and reconstruction effort, then a quick decision must be the better. The mind of the British people will, however, go back to the “Hang the Kaiser ” election, with which the Lloyd George coalition maintained itself in 1918. The ultimate suspicion of a great part of the British electorate was that it had been caught unprepared, if not tricked, by a snap election, and the Government subsequently lost favour very rapidly. It will be difficult, in this instance, for Labour to sustain a charge of precipitancy against Mr Churchill. He has made very clear his' own disinclination to disrupt the existing partnership, but evidently that if it is to be dissolved there should be no, dragging delay in installing a new Government of the people’s choice.