BOOKS OF THE DAY

PAGE The Prospects of Labour (R. C. K. Ensor) . . 282 Spanish Survey (G. L. Steer) .. . . 283 Rude Letters to Youth (C. E. M. Joad) . . 284 The Men I Killed (Lawrence Athill) . . . . 284

PAGE The Anglo-American Front (Sir Arthur Willert) . . 285 Health and a Day (Dr. H. H. Bashford)

. . 286

Two Counties .. .. 286 Fiction (E. B. C. Jones) .. .. 287

THE PROSPECTS OF LABOUR

By R. C. K. ENSOR

THE third decade of this century stands out already in our

political history as that during which the Labour party ousted the Liberal party from its position as the alternative to Con- servatism in the British two-party system. Rendered possible by the Asquith-Lloyd George schism which paralysed the Liberal party, the process of substitution first got under way at the General Election of 1922 ; when, however, the aggregate of Liberal M.P.'s returned still clearly exceeded the Socialists. It was completed by the General Election of 1929. The lavish and prodigious effort then put forth to stage a Liberal come-back failed to erase from the minds of the electors ten years of squabbling and blundering ineffectiveness. That the Labour party, despite the black marks against it from 1924 and 1926, made a positive appeal of its own, it would be absurd to deny. But on the whole there are few clearer cases of an aspirant to power obtaining it through the faults and follies of the only rival.

The fourth (i.e., the present) decade may stand out in the sequel as one in which the Labour party proved unfit to wear the mantle that had fallen to it. Since its dramatic exit from office in August, 1931, there has never been a real alternative to the Government in power. The existence of such an alternative is essential to the healthy working of the British system, and its non-existence for six continuous years explains all that is most unsatisfactory in the present state of our public affairs. The real question, which the Labour party ought now to be asking itself, is how to alter this. What changes are needed in its outlook and policy in order that it may discharge effectively the role attaching to its position ?

So much we must have clear in our minds, if we are to consider profitably the very interesting personal manifesto now issued by Mr. Attlee as Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party. It is not to be expected, of course, that he will say just what has been said above. There are some things which should never pass a party leader's lips, and admission of party failure is one of them. Nevertheless he writes as a highly intelligent and very open-minded man ; and though he nowhere goes to the heart of the case—which is that just as the Labour party had to be something much wider than the Socialist parties which inspired its formation, so the Labour party as second party in the State ought to become something very much wider in turn than the Labour party as a fighting exponent of class revolts and inferiority complexes—yet he is careful to record and approve at every point the tradition of tolerance and elasticity in English Socialism, and does whole-heartedly cleave to democracy and progress by consent as against every sort of dictatorial gospel which would seek to coerce majorities to become what minorities would like them to be. Rejecting the Moscow formula he says :

" I do not believe that there are human beings who are fit to be entrusted with such absolute power. I believe, too, that such a society would be spiritually very poor. The really fated objection to any such plan is the absence of all power of changing the regime. Without this right there is no true freedom. Its denial throws all dissenters from the existing order back to violence as'the only remedy. The apparent stability of a dictatorship conceals this real weakness. Where the only possibility of change is by violence, the Government is bound to protect itself by intense police aetivity. . . . Liberty once surrendered is very hard to recapture."

Nor does he, apparently, share the desire of some of his fellows, that a community should be kept socialistic against its will.

" The idea that the ideal State is one in which no mistakes are made seems to me wrong. Unless there is the liberty to err there is no freedom."

While noting that, it would be unfair to Mr. Attlee not to add that he by no means places himself on the Right -of his

Th:. Labour Party in Perspective. By the Right Hon. C. R. Attlee, M.P. (Gollancz. 7s. 6d.)

party. As a leader's should be, his position is central. He is personally a keen collectivist. He cites the experience of 1929-31 as proving for him that Socialism without collectivism must soon reach the end of its tether. He later elaborates four spheres—banking, the land, coal and power, and transport —in which any future Labour Government that accepts office must in his opinion take certain collectivist steps, not at leisure, but urgently and from the start. One may doubt, however, whether this is quite such a dividing shibboleth as he half fears it to be. Public opinion has now little prejudice against collectivism, provided it is introduced in ways which do not threaten needless panic and upheaval.

But, apart from programmes, many questions remain. Why is the average Labour Member or Labour candidate so third- rate and inadequate a person as he generally is—especially while such stores of high ability stand available for the party, yet unused ? Why, again, has the party made so little headway since 1931 towards rallying under its banner the other pro- gressive forces, whether from its Right or from its Left ? These matters Mr. Attlee treats in two chapters headed " Con- stitution " and " Labour Party Method." Here will be found discussed the machinery for choosing Labour candidates, the machinery for deciding programmes, the caucus pledge by which the member is tied to the programme, the proposals for a Popular Front to bring in the Liberals, or for a United Front to include the I.L.P. and the Communists. Mr. Attlee runs through them all with a quiet even-tempered candour, admitting a good deal and allowing the reader to see a good deal more for himself. His own conclusions, it is true, are almost uni- formly negative. In the long and revealing chapter on " Consti- tution " he passes from one serious flaw to another, but scarcely commits himself to a single remedy.

Similarly he concludes with pretty flat negatives against either a Popular or a United Front. His argument as against the Communists and the I.L.P. seems indeed conclusive. Their only terms for co-operating with the Labour Party would be

Heads we win, tails you lose " ; and the reinforcements which they could bring to it are, when all is said, trivial. But expansions and accommodations to bring in the ex-Liberal elements in the nation are another matter. The Labour Party can never do its job without them ; and though a decisive Mass of them in 1923 and in 1929 voted Labour, it cannot be said that the sequel in either instance was what they were entitled to expect. How much better Mr. Baldwin understood than the Labour chiefs the obligations of a party which has come into power through votes not its own.

Much of Mr. Attlee's space is given to discussing leading national issues. The outlook is sometimes curiously narrow ; there is a chapter on " Foreign Policy," in whose 29 pages neither the United States nor the American people is mentioned or even alluded to. There are also far too many persistences in sheer humbug. For instance, we are told that when a Labour Government comes in it will provide work for every unem- ployed man. Yet it glaringly failed to do so in 1924 or in 1929-31 ; and why ? Not because it was a minority Govern- ment, for the Liberals pressed it to do more than it did. No, the reason was the difficulty of employing unemployed Peter without dis-employing employed Paul. Nor did that arise merely because the money for Peter had to be found by taxation. Mr. Attlee is arguing very shallowly, when he suggests that under collectivism this and similar problems will disappear.

Mr. Attlee's book should strengthen his personal position. It has many party merits—not least its centrality and sympa- thetic fairness towards all sides—trade union, co-operative and political—within the organisation itself. But it scarcely points to any early resumption of office by Labour through any positive action of its own.