SOCIALISTS AT SEA
THE new Labour Party statement of policy is a very useful document. It is not an impressive document. There is no justification for calling it even a competent document. But it may and should serve a very useful purpose in its reaction on the Conservative Party. Labour, with a General Election possibly enough no more than two, months distant, has shown what it has to offer to the electorate. It is for the Conservatives to decide whether they can offer anything better. If not we might as well on many grounds continue to bear the ills we have. But we are not driven to that conclusion yet. Labour has in fact played straight into the Tories' hands. A detailed programme is not demanded of them at this moment. Their strongest asset is the growing and unmistakable desire throughout the country to see the present administration removed from office. And when it goes its successor's freedom of action will inevitably be trammelled by the necessity of concentrating first and for some time on extricating the country from the morass in which it is more than half engulfed. Causes beyond national control are admittedly responsible for - part of the trouble, but doctrinaire legislation and inept administration are the cause of no small proportion of it. In those fields at least the Conservatives can be looked to for better things.
What, in effect, does the Labour statement amount to ? Of its sixteen pages three are devoted to what are virtual platitudes —in that they represent the aims of all parties—on the preserva- tion of peace, and two to some extremely hot air on the " high adventure of further Socialist advance," described as being " the challenge for today." About peace little needs to be said, except that Labour seems determined to make party capital even here. " The Conservatives have shown an increasing tendency to demand the use of force, even at the risk of starting a world war without the support of Britain's allies." What this indefensible libel is meant to refer to is not disclosed. It seems to be of a piece with the equally groundless and studiously offensive affirmation that " Tory Imperialism is a threat to peace." In the intelligent voter such partisan generalities will provoke only distaste. But not all voters are intelligent and not all are well-informed. There is a base but assiduous endeavour in some Labour circles to hold Mr. Churchill in particular up to execration as a " warmonger." Patently false as these accusations are, the Conservatives cannot safely ignore them. On foreign policy generally the Labour statement has next to nothing to say, apart from its aphorisms about peace. That is not surprising, for since Mr. Bevin's active days ended (which was some time before his death) nothing in the govern- mental sphere has caused more anxiety than the conduct of the Foreign Office. The Conservatives have done what they could to keep foreign affairs out of party politics, but conviction is not to be silenced completely. A clear statement of Conservative foreign policy is needed at this juncture.
Even on peace the Labour statement is equivocal, which is perhaps not surprising in view of the recent split in the party over the relative claims of rearmament and the social services on the national income. It has apparently been decided to have it both ways, for with " Our first duty is to save world peace ; no other aim can take priority over that " (p. 2) may be compared " Labour believes that the maintenance of the social services is a first charge on the community " (p. 10). Mr. Bevan and Mr. Gaitskell can lie down together after all. Conservatives, it may be hoped, will have the courage to declare unequivocally that till the immediate dangers in the world have been dispelled by the rapid development of defences sufficiently formidable to' deter attack rearmament is so predominantly important that " no other aim can take priority over that." Such a conclusion is lamentable if inevitable, and the offer of increased social services would obviously make a more popular election slogan. But the country does not refuse necessary sacrifices. It did not during the war, and it will not when the purpose is to avoid war. But the Conservatives must make clear where they stand in the matter of social services. They are consistently traduced in that connection in this pamphlet (" the Conservatives believe that the limit to social services should be set by the amount the rich are prepared to pay " ; " they have asked for slashing reductions in food subsidies "), and an explicit rejoinder is called for. In the matter of food subsidies only one principle is sound, that such subsidies should go to persons and classes who genuinely need them, and not to those who can well afford to dispense with them. There is no administrative difficulty about this ; and the financial saving effected would be substantial.
Labour has no plans for financial saving. Expenditure "on' armaments it rightly says "cannot be reduced unless there is first a change for the better in the conditions which made it necessary." That must go on. At the same time "capital development must be maintained " ; " there will be bigger investment in education " ; " the housing programme will be maintained" ; and of course there must be no reduction of expenditure on the social services. How is it all to be paid for ? The answer is as might be expected. In spite of the admission that the share of the nation's resources taken by " property-owners' " income has been halved since 1938 this process must be carried further. More taxation must be levied on the small minority who draw large unearned incomes from private fortunes. This section of the statement is pure class- appeal. The principle on which previous Economic Surveys' took an almost spectacular stand, of limitation of both wages and dividends, goes clean overboard. " Big business is no longer prepared to restrain its demands on the nation's income." Are the trade unions? On that the statement is diplomatically silent. As to the further taxation of " large " incomes, what is a large income, and how many of them are there ? According to the last available figures the number of persons left with £6,000_ a year and over after paying income-tax and surtax was 70. The number with between £4,000 and £6,000 was 3,430. Further taxation here, however gratifying emotionally, would make a completely negligible contribution to a national budget of well over £4,000 million.
To dismiss all the claims put forward in this unconvincing publication as groundless would of -course be completely unjust. All things considered, the country has weathered the storms of the post-war period with notable success. Full employment exists and the social services have been remarkably enlarged and extended. How much of this is due to and how much in spite of a Labour Government is, no doubt, a matter for controversy. World conditions, with the unsatisfied demand for coal, steel and many other commodities, ensured full employ- ment in this country of themselves. The National Health Service originated directly in the historic report by Lord Beveridge, who is about as much of a Socialist as Sir Waldron Smithers. And, the conditions being what they are, the continuance of a number of controls is inevitable. The difference here is not as to the principle but as to number and degree. It is asserted that Tory spokesmen " have argued that controls should be relaxed or abolished "—a characteristically insidious and dishonest allega- tion. What Tory spokesman in any sort of responsible position has ever proposed that controls be abolished ? But Conserva- tives do, it must be assumed, realise the • paralysing effect on business enterprise of the legislative and administrative fetters by which private business is crippled today, of the delays and frustrations involved in the perpetual necessity to seek sanctions and licences from a Whitehall bureaucracy congenitally ,disposed to think it a safer course to say No than Yes. .Conservatives cleakly could not abolish controls at present. But relaxation is urgently necessary, and the first task of Conservative Ministers of the departments mainly concerned should be to review all existing controls and reduce the list to the lowest practicable limits.
Little more need be said of what must surely be one of the most unimpressive political manifestoes ever issued. As has been said, a detailed programme is not required of the Con- servatives at this juncture, but the necessity of dealing with the charges levelled against them offers them an opportunity, which they should wholeheartedly welcome, for defining their position in various fields with clarity.
Previous page
