THE POLITICAL PROSPECT

By P. C. HOOPER

THE speech of the Prime Minister at the end of October and the supporting statements by leaders of the Liberal and Labour Parties have blown away the fog of election rumour and left the prospect clear-cut. There is complete agreement on three points :

That there will be no return to party politics till the German war is decisively settled.

That a General Election will be held as soon as possible there- after, which means within two or three months, so that no voters need be disfranchised.

That there will be no " coupon " election, but a straight party contest.

There is an open mind on the form of Government—Party or " National " Coalition—which will take office after the General Election. Responsible spokesmen have been careful to exclude neither possibility by pledging themselves either way.

The main issues are not too difficult to forecast. They will be both domestic and foreign. The domestic issue may be summed up in general terms as internal and social reform ; this falls into two natural divisions—the human problems which cluster round the conception of Social Insurance and the redevelopment of blitzed and blighted cities ; and the reorganisation and reconstruction of industry, which entails a redefinition of the relations between the State and private enterprise, and such questions as nationalisation of mines and the whole field of State planning. The foreign problems must include the settlement with Germany and steps to be taken to ensure world-security. Imperial problems, including the imple- mentation of the independence of India, seem unlikely to provide any major cleavage between the parties. General agreement in principle is widespread enough to preclude it.

The Conservative Party, headed by Mr. Churchill and the Con- servative Ministers, must clearly base its programme on the present Coalition Government policy. In this Mr. Churchill can count on the absolute support of the Tory Reform Group, which includes about one-sixth of the party's representation in the House. The Tory Reform Committee came into being to support Social Security ; its outlook is vigorously progressive, and in so far as it has differed from the Government it has done so by wishing to go farther and faster. In contrast, -there is some evidence that Right-wing Con- servatives, and even a considerable body of central opinion in the party, see the Government policy as going too far and too fast for their taste. They are restive under the influence which they consider Labour members of the Government have had on Mr. Churchill and on Coalition policy, and if the party election programme is based officially upon the latter, many of them are certain to maintain a rather restless obedience, with a good many mental reservations. It is not likely, however, that they will carry revolt so far as to endanger party unity, though it may go far enough to result in some mod-ficat'on of the Government's social policy as at present fore- shadowed. In foreign policy there is no party cleavage. There is

a united front for a firm, realistic settlement with Germany and tor the solidest working unity between Britain, America and Russia as the effective basis of world security. T'nose old gentlemen in Norfolk jackets who still feel affection for Franco and regard Russia as the "Bolshevik Bogey " are not likely at this juncture to command any serious following.

As for the Liberals, the days have long since gone when a Liberal meant an out-and-out individualist. Such puckish figures clO linger on in the party, but more from old habit and allegiance than from present sympathy with their fellow-Liberals of Radical Action. This group, which holds in the Liberal Party a place roughly analogous to Tory Reform in the Conservatives, is a growing force in Liberal politics ; powerfully reinforced by the accession of Sir William Beveridge, its influence is likely to be decisive in framing the Part's programme. That programme, on the Home Front, will probab:,

be indistinguishable from the Government Coalition programme as interpreted, for instance, by Tory Reform ; that is by those Tories who stand on the left-centre in relation to the mean of Tory op:hion. They share the same conviction of the iundamental im- portance of private enterprise and the freedom of the individual. coupled with a no less clear understanding that the times demand that the State shall play a greater part than heretofore in the general framework of policy within which private enterprise must operate and develop.

In terms of detail the Liberals are likely to press for a more generous level of Social Insurance benefits and larger family allow- ances as an effective contribution to a national population policy. Abroad, the Liberal view of the German settlement will be no less firm than the Tory, but is likely to be influenced more by the practical consideration of what will still carry British and world support in twenty-five years' time and less by the cry for stern retribution. Liberals hold a strong card in the fact that the Govern- ment policy, bred by Coalition, is essentially a policy of the Centre ; that Labour will want to go much farther to the Left, and that the Conservatives' hearts, if not their lips, are much farther to the Right ; and that the Liberals, who are in effect today the avowed party of the Centre, are the proper party to carry it out, and the only party at all likely to do so. In their conviction as to this they are probably perfectly right—or would be if they could add to Sir William Beveridge a leader or leaders of real national status in place of the dim party figures heavily tainted with the rank aroma of past party dissensions. If the Liberals could get such an accession of strong personalities, of a standing which would enable them to capture the imagination of the young voter in the Forces and the factories, they might well stage a very real come-back if they did not sweep the board. But those big personalities are still a big " If." The Labour Party is, in many respects, more split than the others, though the splits are mainly in the rim and do not go to the solid core represented by the Trades Union bloc. The party is rather like a matron of ample proportions looking out of her house door, silently and cautiously, while the more mannerless among her offspring scream at her shrilly to go this way, do that, or give- them the other. Meanwhile she looks at the street and the weather and says next to nothing bar platitudes. When she does open her mouth it will be to voice a programme which will be bigger, brighter and better than anyone else's. There will be only one doubt—whether it will work. Such doubts will not, of course, linger in Left-wing Labour circles ; they will be put aside as unworthy. Voices from that quarter will force the pace with a cry for the nationalisation of land, mines, transport and anything else that comes in handy at the time.

Side by side with the extreme Left-wing of Labour will be the soberer and more responsible elements, comprising those who have held office in the Government or in the Transport House hierarchy, and who know well the slow pace of public consent and the practical difficulties of the administrator who over-calls his hand or promises what he cannot perform. Up till now Labour,'unlikely to have to make good its programme in office, " could have the joy of being more reckless," to quote Mr. Morrison's speech at Blackpool in May, 1942. Now the respqns:ble Right and.Centre of the Labour Party are likely to take as their main plank the Coalition Government

policy which they too have shared largely in shaping. They will do this because, as a result of experience of office, they know it to be the most, if not the only, practicable policy for transition. They will carry it rather further to the Left of the Coalition position in order to keep party unity, just as the Conservatives are likely to push their party programme a little to the Right.

Their main point, however, must be one of strategy rather than content, of means rather than ends. They will point out that the country will be content with nothing less than the Government's new social policy, and that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals can carry it out, for all their protestations, because the former lack the will to do so and the latter lack the men ; that consequently the only hope for the progressive social policy which all agree in wanting is for the Labour Party to be given the mandate to carry it through. To this they will add, 4uite correctly, that onr export trade cannot be regained, still less increased, or the improvements in education, social services and reconstruction paid for unless the country's industries are reorganised and re-equipped right up to date.

They will quote the Platt report on the cotton industry and the American views on our mining industry to prove that both are gravely out of date, which is true. They will say that these industries cannot find the money from their own resources to re-equip them- selves, which is also true, and natural enough after two world wars in thirty years and complete instability and two slumps in between. They will add, therefore, that the State must take over these and other heavily-hit industries from private enterprise, so that Britain's power to earn her living may be restored and ensured at the new and vitally necessary level of efficiency.

On these last points both the Conservatives and Liberals may be expected to disagree with Labour. They may point out that the failure of private enterprise in heavily controlled, heavily taxed, blitzed and requisitioned Britain to keep pace with private enterprise in America, where State and Union restrictions are far less exacting, and where the two wars have encouraged rather than hindered development, makes no case against private enterprise,—indeed very much the contrary. The facts to the disadvantage of British industry are plain fox all to see ; the real truth of the situation is very much harder to explain. The combination of circumstances thus gives Labour a. very strong election-point, of which the signs are that it will make the fullest possible use.

On foreign policy Labour is the most divided of the parties. Almost all the advocates of a " soft" peace for Germany that/lean be found in the country are in the ranks of the Left. There is, moreover, the traditional link between " workers," Trades Unionists and Socialists in all countries which found expression in the idealism of the " Internationale."' This tenuous link is seen more realistically today, but the combination of circumstances will undoubtedly make it difficult for the Labour Party to take a very firm line. There is also an ideological objection to the use of armed force in inter- national affairs which goes very deep in certain sections of the Left. To back a foreign policy with military power is considered " re- act:onary," and this colours and confuses the Labour attitude to Collective Security.

The public view on the Party programmes may well be crystallised in five words: " A pest on your parties." At least a recent Gallup poll showed a clear preference for a continuance of Coalition Government. The public may well say further: " There is only One practicable reconstruction programme for the next five years, and it has already been set out by a Coalition Government. Left to themielves, the Conservatives may well lack the will or the internal unity to carry it out ; the Liberals lack the leaders, and Labour lacks both experience and a clear majority to do so. There- fore it must be carried out by a Coalition, a differently balanced Coalition, no doubt, with a bigger share of Liberal and Labour, but still a Coalition." The public may add, too, that only a Premier and a Foreign Secretary firmly assured of the support of all parties can sit level at a World Conference table with the leaders of Russia and America. The care with which every Party spokesman has left the door wide open to a new Coalition goes far to point to their recognition of its value and to underline the likelihom1 of such a solution.