Evening star., 1955-05-29

not like voting Tory. But there is
Thus, week ago, the highly
respected, liberal Economist" of
London editorially summed up its
views on how the British general
election should and would go. On
Thursday the British electorate
voted a resounding amen to the
Economists estimate of the situa-
ton.
Some 81 million Britons-a light
turnout for general election
voted to return to power the Con-
servative Party, now led by Sir
Anthony Eden. Where the Con-
servatives had a majority Of fewer
than 20 votes in the Parliament
that ended early this month, they
emerged from the Thursday election
with a majority in the next Parlia-
ment of about so seats. Their gains
were almost entirely at the expense
of the Labor Party. currently led by
former Prime Minister Clement
Attlee.
But both the turnout and the
trend of voting had some aspects
of "a plague on both your houses" -
In 1851, when the British decided to
abandon Socialism in favor of Tory
ism. nearly 83 per cent of the elec-
torate cast ballots This time the
percentage was less than II per
cent. And while the voting trend
was to the right, it was shift of
less than 1.8 per cent away from the
Labor Party.
The outcome was plenty to give
Sir Anthony solid majority in the
House of Commons. which runs
Britain. But it was hardly the
Landslide" some early news reports
bugled it to be.
Foreeone Conclusion
A Conservative victory was so
much foregone conclusion, week
or more before the election, that
some British and American political
observers harked back to 1948 in
the United States. At that time,
they pointed out, the Republicans
were so sure they would beat Harry
S. Truman that they relaxed in
the final days. History records that
the G. o. P. misjudged its strength
and Mr.. Truman's.
It was only a hop, skip and Jump
from here to the conclusion that the
Tories might be crippling them
selves with overconf1dence. But
these observers were reckoning
without Labor's own worst enemy
its deep rift between the Attlee-
led moderates and the extreme So
cialists headed by Aneurin Bevan.
Labor made a good try. based
mainly on the issues Of war, high
prices and special privilege. But the
British voter, hard as he might try,
couldn't be sure who would end up
leading Labor if Labor won-and
where that leader might take the
country in the coming years.
It would be more accurate to say
that the British Socialist Party lost
the election than that the British
Conservative Party won 1t.
Brove-or Smart?
When, 81 days ago, Sir Anthony
Eden took over the reins OF gov
ernment from the aged Sir Winston
Churchill, one of his first acts was
to call a general election. He did
not have to do this: under British
law, he could have waited until the
fall Of 1956-five years after the
last general election.
First Interpretation of Sir An
thongs move was that it was sign
of courage. He had taken over the
government, but he wanted to give
the British people a chance to de-
eide whether he should continue in
Office. This was hailed as noble
gesture.
Noble It might have been; smart
1t certainly was. Sir Anthony also
appreciated the width and depth of
the cleavage in Labor, and decided
to give the people a choice between
unified party of the moderate
right and disrupted party Of the
Lord-knows- -what-kind of left.
AS is usual in British elections, the
appeal was not to the many, but to
the few. Most Britons are, born
Laborites or Tories and stick with
their chosen parties to the grave.
AS British writer Louis K. Mather
said in an election forecast in The
Sunday Star of April "a: IF the
island race were as faithful to it's
marriage vows as to its youthful
choice of political af1iliation, the di-
vorce judges would starve."
So Sir Anthony wasn't trying to
convince the born Tories-who
needed no convincing the born