Foreign News: Before & After

The election was a very sharp setback for the Labor Party, a powerful comeback for the Conservatives. In 1945 Labor had won 61% of the House of Commons; last week it won only a shade more than 50%. With 313 seats needed for an absolute majority, Labor had 315, the Conservatives 296, the Liberals 9, independents 3. The Speaker is considered a neutral, and one district will elect later.

Retrospect. When the returns had finally been tabulated, these points were worth noting:

¶ The Labor losses were probably part of the same swing which had brought about socialist defeats in Australia, New Zealand and on the continent of Europe. ¶ Both the British Laborites and Tories soft-pedaled the issue of government-owned industry. Nevertheless, in Britain, there was and still is a vague disappointment with the results of nationalization and it is highly probable that this was a hidden, but important, factor in Labor's loss of steam. ¶| Both parties promised to continue a state welfare program, which is undeniably popular with the mass of Britons. But the Labor Party is much more intimately identified with the welfare state than the Tories; the vote may indicate that large sections of the British public have begun to question the high price of the welfare state.

¶ The election was held during a period of unprecedented full employment and rising real wages (both partly sustained by U.S. aid). These conditions would be expected to help the party in power. That Labor suffered an undeniable setback in these circumstances indicates grave British doubts about the long-range -aspects of the Labor program. ¶ Labor almost held its own in the big cities. The Tories have made no appreciable headway among industrial workers. The increased Tory vote in rural and semi-rural areas resulted from better Tory vote-getting organization. With near-success, this improved organization can be expected to continue.

¶ Left-wing Laborites like ardent, outspoken Aneurin Bevan (see above) complained that Labor would have done better if it had fought a more militant, more frankly leftish campaign. There is no objective reason to believe this. Both major parties drove for the middle, squeezing the Liberals between them. In the doubting mood of the British electorate, these cautious tactics were probably sound for both sides.