WHAT THE COUNTRY EXPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Your correspondent, Mr. Barnes-Austin, in the Spectator of November 8th, outlines a programme of what he considers " the country expects the Government to do." Let it be remembered that the votes cast for the' Liberals and for Labour at the election outnumber those cast for Conservatives it is not, therefore, for any of us to assert boldly either what the country expects or does not expect. But I think it is not unfair to assert that Mr. 'Barnes-Austin's harren programme is at most only what a certain section of the population of Tunbridge Wells and Cheltenham expect of the Government. And it differs so utterly from the -con- structive and statesmanlike proposals contained in recent numbers of the Spectator that I as another of your readers, of perhaps 20 years' standing, beg leave to trespass on your space so as to examine Mr. Barnes-Austin's programme a little more closely. We are told that the Government has a mandate :— To deal drastically with Communists. [Are the Communists really worth bothering about at all ? Numerically, they are about one in 40,000 of the population, and if we do not give thein too much ftee advertisement they will probably dwindle to less.] (ii.) The dole paid in money is to be substituted by a dole in kind. [To do this effectively it would probably be necessary to extend State Socialism, but has Mr. Barnes-Austin ever tried to live on 15s. a week ? I tried the experiment of liVing London on 7s. 6d. a week before the War, but to do so in idleness did not remove the incentive to work and augment that income. The Than who is happy to be idle on 15s. a week is again the one in 40,000 or thereabouts.] (iii.) The House of Lords veto is to be restored pending reform. [Is this of the least moment, or if of moment is it of urgency ? Can Mr. Barnes-Austin imagine any House of Commons bringing in a measure which
is calculated to diminish its own powers ?] ,
(iv.), (v.), and (vi.) The powers of Trade Unions, more particularly in -connexion with strikes, are to be curtailed. [The Trade Unions will not give up one iota of what they have gained by a century of struggle without the risk of something like revolution. And the Conservative Government would quickly be superseded by a Labour Government with plenary, powers to reverse the process.] It will be observed that theie six proposals involve negative legislation. The country needs and demands neither reaction nor laissez faire. It does want tranquillity abroad and freedom from industrial disputes at home. And it wants stability only because men and women of all views are agreed that far-reaching schemes of social reform are immediately impera- tive. Abroad we need peace and friendship with all nations and no. entangling alliances—in- essentials a continuance of the MacDonald policy ; at home a solution of the Housing and Unemployment problems and the reform of the Poor Law —perhaps along the lines of the Minority Report of the Royal Commission of 1910. Above all, we need imaginative and constructive statesmanship which will recognize that, since 1914, not ten, but a hundred years, have passed.
And, as you .have yourself so wisely pointed out, a cardinal- feature of home policy must be to increase the number of the " Haves " and diminish that of the " Have-nots." Co- (i.) operation and small proprietorship are the real buttress against Socialism : a multitude of individual owners (but not necessarily all competitors) instead of the one great owner— the State. Behind it all must be Disraeli's conception of the development of independence and self-reliance in the individual citizen. But it is the State which-must make all this possible,' and many of us Would like the Spectator, at some early date, to indicate, in outline, its views as to how the number of small owners of land, of houses and of investments can be increased by Government measures..L—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
