GE ee

What will
the CCF do

NEW political situation is

in the making in British
Columbia. Almost one out of
every two electors voted
Social Credit in last week’s
provincial election, yet even
before the final returns we
tabulated it was evident that
the changes went much fur:
ther than the 39-13 majority
Premier Bennett’s Socred ad-
ministration rolled up.

The most positive aspect of
the election was the fact that
the voters showed that they
had no intention of being bam-
boozled“by “New Look” Lib-
erals and Tories,

While it is obvious that the
progressive forces did not suc-
ceed in convincing the major-
ity of the voters of the grave
dangers of a continuation of
Social -Credit’s giveaway of
natural. resources, the voters
showed they have not for-
gotten the treatment they re-
ceived at the hands of a now
defunct Liberal-Tory coalition.
Thus, the illusion that the Lib-
erals could stage a comeback
shared by what is left of the
old Liberal machine, the Van-
couver Sun, and the mislead-
ers of labor of Gervin-Alsbury-
Wilkinson brand, was  shat-
tered.

A smaller opposition, it is
true! But the shift in relation-
ships of opposition groups, and
the changed composition of
the opposition elected, may in
the next year or two out-
weigh the 26-member majority
the Socreds won. Social
Credit scored. an impressive
win, but it is one that is going
to help advance efforts to de-
velop CCF-LPP-labor-farmer
unity.

With the Liberals able to
hold the spotlight as the op-
position (despite their small
number of MLA’s) and still
clinging to important posi-
tions of influence in the labor
and farm movements, they
served as an ‘obstacle to united
labor action.

cd
Now, with their position in
the provincial arena all but

demolished, it can become a

question not so much of what
the Socreds do as what the
CCF, the LPP, and the labor
and farm movements do.

The point must not be mis-

By NIGEL MORGAN

sed that while Social Credit
succeeded in winning 75 per-
cent of the 52 seats, it did so
with 45.9 percent of the pop-
ular vote. With an increase
of 8.2 percent in the total
vote cast for Social Credit com-
pared with the 1953 election,
it will have an additional 11
seats when the legislature
January. And
344,508
votes for Social Credit’s “pros-
perity” program, there were
220,392 CCF, LPP and labor
votes against Social Credit’s

giveaway policies, its favorit-
ism toward the B.C. Electric
and other monopolies.

meets next

while there were

This does not take into con-
sideration the 186,911 ballots
polled by the Liberals and
Tories, many of which were
labor votes because cf Tom
Alsbury’s appeal to CCFers to
vote Liberal in certain con-
stituencies and the fact that
four trade unionists ran on the
Liberal ticket.

*

In spite of the vote, Premier
Bennett knows that he cannot
take things for granted. The
election» produced a more
hazardous undercurrent of
opposition that the government
had anticipated, and it is aware
that if there had been more
time to debate the govern-
ment’s policies and record the
results might’ have been dif-
ferent.

Bennett pulled a snap elec-
tion in order to evade the real
issues, which he successfully
sidestepped in the short, whirl-
wind campaign.

Instead, riding on the crest
of a temporary construction
boom and with a provincial
budget five times that of ten
years ago, he projected the
most enticing bribe the voters
of, this province have ever
been offered,

Undoubtedly the promise of
$28-a-year tax rebate to all
homeowners, the $78 million
bridge and road appropriation
and the comparative prosper-
ity resulting from temporary
construction projects in the
initial development of natural
gas and pulp for foreign. ©x-

port, outweighed the warning
about the future which the
Labor-Progressive party cor-
rectly placed to the fore dur-
ing the campaign.

The fact that certain oppos-
ition groupings, especially the
Liberals and the daily press
made such a to-do about the
Sommers scandal rather than
the resources question of which
it’ was only one expression;
and the slowness and weak-
ness with which some CCF

.candidates took hold of the

resources issue, no doubt
helped the Socreds in getting
away with it.

The election returns pro-
vide a striking confirmation of
the estimation and warning
that the Labor-Progressive
party gave of the dangers that
Premier Bennett’s. sneak el2c-
tion trick could create for the
entire labor movement unless
united action could be achie-
ved between CCF, LPP, labor
and farm voters generally.

The results bear out the
correctness of the LPP decis-
ion not to contest more than
eight constituencies and~ to
work actively for re-election
of Labor veteran Tom Uphill
and the CCF in all constitu-
encies held by the CCF in the
last legislature, or where the
margin between CCF and
Socred votes was sufficiently
narrow that the CCF had a
chance of winning.

The Socred sweep would
have been much greater had
it not been for the ‘persever-
ing and self-sacrificing elec-
tion work of the LPP.

The 14 candidates, running
in eight well-placed constit-
uencies throughout the prov-
ince, played + an important
part in arousing progressive
voters to hold the line, in ex-
posing the false demogogy of
both Socreds and Liberals, in
focussing attention on the real
issues, and in relating them to
the central problem of our
generation — Canadian inde-
pendence. Their small votes
in no way reflected the res-
pect they commanded or the
widespread acclaim which
greeted the~ LPP proposals
wherever they were presented.

In the 1953 election the LPP
stood alone on the resources

ROBERT STRACHAN. .

lenge of a new situation.

question. In this election the
candidates who got 54.1 per-
cent of the vote spoke on this
question ‘(including even Lib-
erals and Tories), although
only the LPP and some CCF
spokesmen came out sharply
on the key aspect of U.S. dom-

ination.
*

In constituencies where CCF-
LPP unity was achieved it
was an important factor in
stopping Social Credit. Some
of the seats the CCF lost to
Social Credit could have been
saved had it not been for prov-
ocative, anti-unity statements
of a few right-wing leaders
early in the campaign.

A case in point is that of
Harold Thayer, CCF provin-
cial secretary and candidate
in Vancouver East, who an-
swered the LPP announcement
of intention to withdraw in
his favor, with the unfortun-
ate statement that LPP votes
were ‘“unsought, unwanted
and rejected.” Despite per-
sistent appeals from the LPP,
there were many supporters
who refused to vote for him in
face of such a statement. Had
he realized it, with those three
ill-considered words he threw
away his chance of election,
which he lost by the narrow
margin of 196 votes.

However, in spite of a few
such instances, great headway
was made in establishing a
degree of unity with the CCF

SEPTEMBER 28, 1956 — PACIFIC TRIBUNE —

_d new leader faces the

* m 4
‘ward to the achiev® ont

ici |
on the basis of correct pol |
for B.C. In constituency * a 3

constituency LPP help

support was welcomed “4 3
many LPP election W% op
were fold, “We don't”
what we would have don?
time without you.” “ttl

In the forging of “igh
action lies the key
future. The good begitl ie
that have been made ie
diligently pursued. |
ate consideration ™ * q
given as to how to trem pt |
political action in the a
and farm movements: © A

How can we develoP soot
action to stop the
giveaways ?

How can we achiev aa
of all progressive f0? io
the forthcoming —
elections ? e

How can the fight for P° ng
policies that put canad@ 5 {he
be strengthened whe watt |
Legis'ature meets i” Jan ait 4
And how can we forse ® ve!
people’s alternativ a
Liberal-Socred . bet®¥ veit |
Ottawa for next year's! |

election ? fi
in!

In all these things ® srt

week’s election, unite i

is the only answe! wi
ginnings have bee? ott
Now, how to carry

big question before i
a progressive majo!
labor and progressive

ment today.

fete:

PE