THE NECESSITY FOR FACTS
By HAMILTON KERR, M.P.
THEattack on Europe draws near. From the east, from the west, tt from the south, from the air, great blows are about to daze and break the German power. Nerves strain waiting for the first chords of the terrifying overture. And yet anyone who travels round the country and talks to the men and women in the Services realises at once that what they are thinking and talking about most is the life they hope to live after the war. The men who will handle the landing, barges, the tanks, the bombers, the men who will storm the beaches and fight their way across the long populous plain of Europe, the women in R.A.F. control-rooms and on anti-aircraft sites, are wondering about the day they leave off their uniforms, about a civilian job, about their homes in the period of the armistice. Never have so many men and women wanted to take an intelligent interest in political problems. They recognise that, as voters, great responsi- bilities lie upon them, and—as sincere patriots,—they wish to equip themselves to fulfil their responsibilities. But the moment they start to discuss their problems they realise that very often they do not command the facts which alone permit a sound judgement.
Questions such as these come to mind—What will be the sum total of our national resources at the end of the war? What is our national income likely to be? How much will Beveridge and Educa- tion and Housing cost? What sort of Budget will the Chancellor of the Exchequer be able to present to the House of Commons every year? How much of our export trade shall we be able to recover? Do our industries possess the best possible machinery and lay-out with which to compete in world markets? How many men and women shall we be able to release from the Forces once the war in the west is won? How many people do we intend to employ in agriculture? Can we hope to exercise influence as a small nation af 48 millions, or must we identify ourselves ever more closely with the CommOnwealth—with all this implies?
Unless you have a clear picture of these first essentials in your minds you cannot form a judgement of value. The Chinese have a saying, "What does a frog who lives in a well know of the sea? " The frog only sees his little world, the brick walls of his well, the few cubic feet of water in which he swims. So long as he does not think, he is happy. But the moment he tries to escape into the wide world he feels hemmed in and frustrated. Amongst the -men and women in the Forces who try to think for themselves and form independent judgements, I find that a feeling of frustration does exist. They want to see the whole panorama of the world before them, but, like the frog, they are each imprisoned in their separate wells. They fear that things are being settled, so to speak, behind their backs, and that perhaps the old muddles may repeat themselves. They look to Parliament to inform the nation.
Perhaps few people realise that the back-bencher in Parliament often- knows little more than the well-informed constituent. Par- ticularly in wartime, events compel the executive to act and after- wards come to Parliament for approval. In the conduct of foreign affairs, in negotiations with allies on political and economic problems, such a course is often necessary. But a wide range of questions exists where facts, once published, do not help the enemy. Absorbed in its problems, working twenty-four hours of the day, Whitehall often does not realise the popular hunger for information. Thus it is the duty of the back-bencher to obtain facts from the Govern- ment. And the best method at his disposal is the Parliamentary question. Every day the Government is subjected to a close scrutiny at question time, but the questioning is often haphazard. Each mem- ber puts down questions which particularly interest him, and from the answers an intelligent observer can piece together a rough mosaic of the situation. I believe the time has now come for a planned campaign of questions from the back-benchers--questions on the really vital issues. People demand facts, facts upon which they can base conclusions. And the knowledge of facts alone gives value to Parl:amentary debate.
Perhaps it is in the international field most of all that facts are needed. Do we yet sufficiently realise the problems which stare us in the face there? As General Smuts pointed out, political and economic power has shifted away from Europe. The United States and Soviet Russia have moved from the wings into the glare of the footrghts. The United States has become the workshop of the world. Lease-Lend goods supply the Allies in every war zone from the Pacific to the Arctic. American food will feed starving Europe. American aircraft production is more than three times that of any other nation. In the shipyards of the Pacific the genius of Mr. Kaiser has created a great mercantile marine, which the United States intends to use in times of peace. The needs of war have likewise stimulated production in the Soviet Union. When Germany col- lapses, the factories in the Urals will not shut their doors. But the factories in the Donetz will Certainly rise again from the ashes and rubble of war, and then Russia will have two great producing areas instead of one. Facts about all this are urgently needed.
Our Dominions have likewise industrialised themselves. Canad.4, Australia, South Africa, India are now turning out tanks, guns and aeroplanes in great numbers. They will certainly wish to convert these factories to peace-time production when the armistice comes. And then in this country, as in Europe (with the exception of the Soviet Union), the birth-rate is falling. But the people of Asia multiply themselves to a fantastic degree. In twelve years the popula- tion of India has risen by sixty millions. In Japan the population increases by one million a year. If this process continues, how shall we find the world in the year z000? Again the need for a steady supply of incontrovertible facts.
One supreme value of facts, facts that must be universally ac- cepted, is that they inevitably provide common ground for common action. In the post-war period we can certainly return to political rivalries. We can return governments with small majorities, and—in consequence—hold numerous elections. We can change our policies with the triumph of rival parties. We can hamper our Foreign Secre- tary by dividing the nation behind his back. We can weaken our position everywhere in the world by faction, by political catchwords, by pettiness of soul. On the other hand, although different people or parties can obviously draw different conclusions from the same facts, we have achieved something if we do not disagree about the facts themselves.
Agreeing about them, we can agree on essentials. We can agree ' that we all want a great and strong Britain. And if we accept this proposition, we can agree upon the attitude of mind which wilt inspire our efforts. Now the British political genius is essentially a practical genius. It does not ask itself so much " Is this a logical conclusion, does it look well on paper? ", but " Does it work? " To use a popular phrase, it prefers a practical approach. By cultivating the practical approach we at once lower the temperature of con- troversy. But this attitude of mind demands facts—hard, unrelenting facts—upon which to pass judgement. The time has come when all people should know these facts. One practical step at any rate towards post-war reconstruction would be for back-benchers of all parties to combine, in a planned campaign of questions, to discover the firm outline of the world-taking shape before our eyes. Just as our light reconnaissance craft in a fleet move ahead through an enemy smoke-screen to discover the strength of his forces, and report their disposition to the commander-in-chief, so perhaps the back- bencher today can best serve his country by discovering and telling his constituents the true but hard facts of the world coming to life in the second half of the twentieth century. And who can doubt that, once our people know the facts, their greatness of soul will surmount all obstacles, as it has ever done in the past?
Previous page
