British politics at the moment are in a queer condition. Instead of charging with wild cries of triumph towards the next election, the Labor Party is merely sitting restively on the Opposition benches, making rather pettish complaints and feeling that all the Socialist buglers must be on leave. Lord Hailsham rings his bell for the Conservative Party and gets a fair amount of publicity; the Government carries on quite confidently, doing a lot of useful spadework in unspectacular fields. And the country pays very little attention. It still doesn’t want to vote for either of them.
The major rumpus of the past two weeks was no help to either party. It is generally believed that Britain sent weapons to Tunisia almost entirely because Mr. Dulles wished it so. This annoys some people. Why should we anger our old allies, the French? If it was really necessary for Western arms to be sent, why couldn’t they all come from America—with tacit British consent if need be? But was it necessary? Have we any reason to suppose that the receipt of Western arms is incompatible with the receipt of more arms from Egypt and the Soviet bloc? A vexed question: but not one of which the Labor Party can make use, for all good Socialists would prefer to side with the Algerian rebels against the French colonialists.
Comments