How They Dealt with the Election Paper Ration

In the House of Commons on the 9th May the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, in answer to a question, said :

“The Government have given instructions that paper …. is to be made available for the General Election at the rate of one ton for each candidate …. the quantity to be increased by one quarter for independent candidates. . . . The headquarters of the established parties will, in addition be allowed paper at the rate of one ton for each candidate run by the party. In the case of the small parties, an additional five tons will be licensed. . . .”—(Official Report, 9th May, 1945).

The party having already decided to run a candidate in Paddington North, an application had been made for additional supplies of paper prior to this date.

On the 22nd May we were informed by the Ministry of Supply that:

“. . . . The allocation for Party Headquarters is restricted to the recognised parties having representatives in the House and the Socialist Party of Great Britain as such is not therefore entitled to any allocation for this purpose. . . .”

In a further letter dated the 29th May, the Ministry of Supply said that if we decided to put up a candidate he would “be entitled to a quota on the basis allowed to Independents. . . .”

It is not the purpose of this article to complain at the treatment meted out to us by the parties of capitalism, who, in possession of governmental power, have always been prepared to use it to suppress wherever possible the views of their opponents. Knowing them, we do not expect them to do otherwise. We do, however, place on record the purposeful ambiguity of the statement in the House of Commons which, when subsequently amplified by the Ministry of Supply, excluded from tne ranks of “established” parties an organisation which has been in continuous political existence longer ihan most of the political parties at present represented in the House of Commons.

The care which the large political parties of capitalism claim to have for democratic institutions becomes a mockery when they use their governmental power to withhold from a minority organisation a large part of the material which they themselves consider to be necessary for the presentation of their own points of view.

Finally we wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons drawing attention to the facts set out above and received from the Speaker’s secretary, Mr. Ralph Verney, the following negative reply.

“Dear Sir,
The Speaker asks me to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd June.
The Speaker’s responsibility to give opportunity for the expression of the views of a Minority is confined to the House of Commons; he cannot interfere with the decision of a Government Department, such as the Ministry of Supply, as to whether the issue of any particular commodity can be extended.”

Readers of the SOCIALIST STANDARD will appreciate from the foregoing statement the difficulties under which we labour in making known the Socialist case at this Election.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, S.P.G.B.