How Much for Lloyd George?

Trading in election futures was brisk, last week, on the Royal Exchange. Such trading, Englishmen like to think, is not "betting on the election." Certainly the thing is done in London with a flair and a nice decorum equaled nowhere else on earth. Indeed most U. S. citizens would find themselves flabbergasted if asked to devise the machinery for placing bets on an election which has so many queer features (General Parliamentary Election, TIME, Nov. 10, 1924).

First off, no one knew, last week, exactly on what day or in what week or even during which month the British General Parliamentary Election would be held. As leader of the party in power (Conservative), placid Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin could and would send all Great Britain scrambling to the ballot box at whatever time his advisers deemed least favorable to the rival parties (Laborite & Liberal). He might spring a "surprise election" in early May, or dawdle along until late June. So long as docile Britons are called to cast their ballots within the legal period of five years after the present House of Commons was elected (Oct. 29, 1924), good Squire Baldwin has as much liberty of choice as a Dowager Duchess deciding in July which hymns her servitors will sing at Christmas.

Secondly, it might seem impossible to devise a satisfactory way of betting on the British General Election as a whole, because the result may leave any one of the three parties or any two of them in power. Theoretically, should a roughly equal number of seats be won by each of the three parties, then after the election there might be formed any one of three different coalitions--Conservative-Liberal, Liberal-Laborite, or Conservative-Laborite--to carry on the Government. The King-Emperor would be obliged (by custom) to bestow the supreme political office of Prime Minister on any man designated by any party or coalition able to control a majority of votes in the House. Upon such seeming quicksands as these how shall one even lay the lightest bet?

Absurdly simple! One either rings up one's broker or steps round to the Royal Exchange itself. Ignoring that justly celebrated mural Phoenicians Bartering with the Ancient Britons in Cornwall, one presses straight on and finds a board where election futures were quoted, last week.

thus:

BOUGHT SOLD

CONSERVATIVES 274 270

LIBERALS 84 80

LABORITES 264 260

Suppose that one considered 84 an attractive buy in Liberals. Then by having one's broker "place" -L-1 ($4.86) at that figure one would get exactly one's money back if the Liberals win 84 seats, and would receive an additional pound for every seat they win above that number. Inversely, if one sells Liberals at 80, and if only 70 candidates of that party are returned to the House, one pockets a crisp "tenner" ($48.60). To guess wrong in either buying or selling is to lose a pound a seat.

A glance at the quotation board, last week, showed that "The City" expects to see the Conservatives and Laborites matched against each other as two nearly equal Goliaths--with Liberalism's small David Lloyd George twirling between them in his slingshot the dangerous pellet called "balance of power." By allying himself with either Goliath, smart Little David would lay the other low; and although he can scarcely hope to hold the Prime Ministry himself, he could keep the unfortunate incumbent of that office on the hooks.

To men of property, who bore in mind' last week the infinite capacity of Mr. Lloyd George for chicanery, the Empire seemed to pause on the brink of quite appalling possibilities. In 1924 the Liberal Party held a similar balance of power between Conservatives and Laborites, but in those days, the helm of Liberalism was steadied by the firm hand and moral weight of the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, now dead (TIME., Feb. 27, 1928). Today there is no force within the Liberal Party able to keep Little David from staging his own particular brand of rip-roaring Taffy Welshman's holiday.

Last week's figures on the Royal Exchange were all the more significant because they represented a sudden fall of 20 points within a fortnight in the quotations on Conservatives. These 20 points--20 prospective seats in the House of Commons--were subtracted by the brokers on 'Change from a previous Conservative quotation of 292 and were added to the then prevailing Liberal figure of 62. Thus the shrewd merchants of London's "City" showed what they fear will be the effect of Mr. Lloyd George's recent phenomenally daring Liberal keynote speech (TIME, March 11), in which he promised to find work for virtually all of Britain's 1,400,000 unemployed--and this without increasing taxes! Though the speech was branded at once as pure demagogy by disinterested editors throughout the U.S. and Europe, the London stock exchange figures coldly suggested, last week, that Welsh David had made a big killing of prospective votes.

Quick to follow up his advantage, Mr. Lloyd George--who won the election of 1918 by promising to "Hang the Kaiser"--placed on sale at sixpence (12-c-) a pamphlet called We Can Conquer Unemployment! Soon he jubilantly announced that "the first edition has sold out six times over!" In this palpable campaign broadside, shrewdly sold instead of given away, Mr. Lloyd George proposes to employ nearly 600,000 workers, "many within three months" on road building, house construction, telephone installation, "electrical developments," land drainage, reforestation, canal digging, and "in meeting the huge demand for British goods" which --the sixpence pamphlet confidently predicts--will result from "restoration of our trade relations with Russia."

Cornered by Conservative and Laborite journalists in the House of Commons, Mr. Lloyd George calmly pruned a pale cigar while listening amiably to many a following sarcastic question.

Question: "Since your remedy for unemployment is so obvious and simple, is it due to knavery or stupidity that other political parties have not adopted it?"

"So far as the present Government [Conservative] is concerned," twinkled Liberal Lloyd George, "I prefer to rely on the latter alternative."

Question: "Would you support any party advocating a plan the same as yours?" At this vital, leading question the humorous little Welshman instantly grew grave. His answer--and he chose to answe--would show where Little David stood between the two Goliaths.

''Without any hesitation," said Mr. Lloyd George solemnly, ''I will support any party advocating those principles."

"Even the Labor party?"

''I give that pledge, whatever party is in power!"

As brazenly as any auctioneer. Little David held up the last remnant of what used to be the great, historic party of William Ewart Gladstone, and as good as asked, "What am I offered?"