THE CONSERVATIVES' CHANCES
IT was inevitable that the imminence of a General Election— whether the polling turns out to be months or only weeks ahead—should dominate the Conservative Conference at Earl's Court this week. The fact that it is the largest conference in the party's history is less significant than may appear ; there is a quickening of interest in party politics generally. The Labour Party has had a considerable accession of membership, and the Liberal leaders have surprised themselves by the enthusiasm they have aroused at party meetings and their success in extracting contributions to party funds. But this is the Conservatives' day— or rather week. They are clearly in confident mood, and Lord Woolton is said to have tuned up the party machine to a hitherto unequalled pitch of efficiency. That may well be so ; but elections are not won by machines. Personalities count for something ; policies count, or should count, for more. Let it be accepted that in the matter of organisation and financial support the Con- servatives have all they could hope for. What concrete programme have they to put before the country ? The full answer to that will, no doubt, not have been given till Mr. Churchill has made the closing speech of the Conference on Friday. But a partial answer was given some three months ago in the now well-known booklet, The Right Road for Britain, and Mr. Eden was en- couragingly decisive on a good many vital points when he addressed the Earl's Court conference on Wednesday. The Government will be judged by its record, the Conservatives by their professions. Each party can number several millions of pledged supporters. But it is the unpledged residue that will decide the issue. What appeal can the Conservatives make to the floating vote ?
The business of any Opposition is to attack the Government, but it matters a good deal whether the attack is well-directed, and what policies the Opposition has to offer as alternatives to the policies it condemns. But so far as this election is concerned one question is paramount, and Mr. Eden dealt with it effectively on Wednesday. Another five years of Socialism, he said, and what prospect would there be of saving Britain from becoming permanently a Socialist State ? If the reality of that issue needs underlining it is necessary to turn only to the speeches of the Labour Party leaders, who look forward as confidently as others do apprehensively to a further spell of power which will set the Socialist State on immovable foundations. This is no light matter. At many elections the choice is little more than between the ins and the outs ; no vital issue predominates. But today something fundamental is in question. Is collectivism and centralisation to be so firmly riveted on the country that even the strongest defenders of free enterprise will be unable to restore the situation if and when they come to power? Even now not all the omelet can be unscrambled. Some nationalised industries, as Conserva- tives themselves admit, will have to stay nationalised, though reorganisation and decentralisation may do something to mitigate part of their defects. But suppose Labour is returned and its declared programme carried into law ? Coal, transport by land and air, cable and wireless communications, gas and electricity, the Bank of England, have already been nationalised. If to them arc added iron and steel, industrial insurance, sugar and cement, as a further but not a final instalment, how much of Mr. Morrison's 8o per cent. of industry will remain under private enterprise ? How far shall we fall short of being in effect a Socialist Statc ?
But will it necessarily be disastrous if we are ? It will be disastrous for many reasons. In the first place it has yet to be proved that nationalisation is as efficient as private enterprise ; evidence that it is remains conspicuously lacking. In the coal industry output as a whole is admittedly deplorable ; absenteeism stands at a record figure ; so does the price of coal to the consumer. It can be argued, no doubt, that the situation would be still worse under private enterprise. That is a matter of specula- tion and assumption ; the actual situation is a matter of fact. But there is a larger question than that. The more nationalisation is extended the greater becomes the power of the Government of the day. We are not in sight of a totalitarian State in Britain, and it is foolish exaggeration to suggest that we are. But we are taking the first steps that lead towards totalitarianism, and it will be wise to consider earnestly before taking the second and the third. It is quite true that the nationalised industries are ad- ministered by special boards or commissions, but each of these is responsible in the last resort to the Cabinet, which derives increasing power with every great industry that is taken out of private hands. A French paper this week contained a striking paragraph at least as relevant to the situation north as to that south of the English Channel: "It is the State itself—the State which is tax-collector, customs official, miner, banker, transport agency and producer of electricity—that holds in its hands the keys of the French economy." Decide if you will that some part of that is necessary. But where is it to stop ? The Labour Party has said much, and very specifically, about how it is to continue, about its stopping nothing at all.
It is to some extent a handicap to the Conservatives that in the situation existing they are bound to go some way along the same road as Labour, though certainly not so far, and probably not so fast. Even in the matter of devaluation the action taken last month must be accepted as necessary, given the situation which had been allowed to develop, but it is perfectly fair for Conservatives to protest that the situation should never have been created, and to point out that the consequences are likely to be far more serious than the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Government spokesmen allow the nation to expect. That there must be some close association between the Government and industry is a proposition generally accepted, though it need, and should, go nowhere near so far as nationalisation ; the National Steel Board, which united the Government, employers and trade unionists, is an example of an instrument which worked admirably till the threat of nationalisation destroyed it. As for foreign policy, that fortunately is still no plaything of party antagonisms. Mr. Eden on Wednesday put the familiar Beaverbrook drum-bang in its place by his insistence on developing constantly more inti- mate collaboration with our neighbours in Western Europe. Con- servatives, it may be assumed, would be as zealous as Mr. Bevin has been in the work of 0.E.E.C., more zealous in everything that is represented by Strasbourg, resolute and active partners with the Atlantic Treaty nations, above all with the United States, and, as need hardly be added, tireless in exploring ways of drawing the free nations of the Commonwealth in a still closer union.
The time has come now for the Conservatives to be explicit. They are pledged to reduce Government expenditure. How and where ? Precise figures will not be called for. These can wait for the first Conservative budget, if there is one. We plainly cannot afford L300,000,000 (the figure Mr. Bevan gave last week) on the National Health Service. But where would the Conservatives economise, and at what loss, if any, of benefit to the patient ? In regard to the armed forces there must be economy without loss of efficiency ; do the Conservatives know how to achieve that ? Taxation must be reduced. Nothing could be more necessary. Does that mean an unbalanced budget, or_ a sufficient cut in expenditure to make a cut in taxation possible ? What is the Conservative policy about limitation of dividends and wages ? Is that to continue or to go ? If the latter, how is inflation to
Previous page
