LIBERALS AND LABOUR
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—I fear that I left the exact nature and extent of the nationalisation agreed on by all Socialists as an immediate programme somewhat vague. It consists of the nationalisation of the Bank of England, the setting up of a National Investment Board, the nationalisation of the land, the means of transport, the coal industry and the supply of heat, light and power, both for domestic and industrial purposes.
Whether or not this is sufficiently drastic to call for a non possumus from Mr. Angus Watson and Mr. H. G. Wood I do not know, for, as a short programme to be carried through in the lifetime of one Parliament, it admittedly falls far short of complete nationalisation or State Socialism. I referred to it as " nationalisation," without qualifying .it, because it seemed to me that nothing was to be gained by pretending that it was less a pure Socialist measure than in fact it is. I can also assure
Mr. Watson that, whatever Mr. John Scanlon's views, this is the programme which was put forward by the Right Wing of the party and on which all sections are agreed.
On other matters raised in the two letters, I am loth to enter into controversy, since I feel that it should be left to pens more skilled and voices more authoritative than mine. But speaking as an individual, I should like to suggest to Mr. Wood that twice Labour has accepted a " progressive " alliance with Liberals and undertaken office without power. The result, on both occasions, has been a disastrous defeat by reactionary forces simply because the vested interests opposed to reform were not immediately checked by the only weapon capable of subduing them—nationalisation. The results of 1931, at least, were almost as dire for the Labour Party as they have been for the country. And with that lesson in mind, it seems to me that it would be suicide to repeat the experiment a third time. Better remain out of office for fifteen years, gradually making converts, than accept an alliance whose inevitable failure would inaugurate a reactionary Government lasting for fifty.—I am,
Previous page
