A CHALLENGE TO LIBERALS
Snt,—Mr. Ian Simpson's letter (Spectator, August 29th) provokes thoughts. There is nothing, he says, between the good conservative and the good Liberal of 1947. There is, of course—plenty. In opposition both are busy saying " No " to Socialism. If their combined no should defeat Socialism, the difference would shine out: the reiterative no of Con- servatism (if still Conservative) and the progressive resourcefulness of Liberalism (if still Liberal). Mere no won't satisfy the nation. It needs more doctrine and action than " Conservatism "—precautionary name!.— promises. The name is ripe for dropping, and Mr. Simpson suggests " Union " instead. This has one merit, if it is a merit ; it is non- committal: and one monumental demerit ; it harks back to the opposi- tion to Home Rule, which history has long disowned.
Mr. Simpson asks Liberals to join the Conservatives. The boot is on the other leg. The Liberals have the better name and good doctrine, their own, rather than expostulatory negation, against the day of oppor- tunity, if it should come. The cue for Conservatives, if Mr. Simpson is right that there is nothing between them, is to join the Liberals. But here is a crux. The Liberal Party today is very unlike itself in better days. Then it was national. It comprised Liberals, Conservatives, Labourists, Socialists and nondescripts. It was representative, compre- hensive, variegated, anything and everything, as a great national party should be It was quarrelsome, intriguing, and schismatic, but somehow held together: the family spirit and the needful warmth were there. Now it seems to have become a sect—exclusive, particularist and inquisitional. Entry is difficult and exit easy. Toleration, a large part of the Liberal "message," seems to have faded away.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
