LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Liberal Programme
SIR.—May a rank-and-file Liberal make some comments on your leading article of February 10th ? You speak of " party sacrifice " for the sake of "national welfare." Liberals made this sacrifice in 1931, and the national welfare did not in our opinion gain noticeably from the period of Tory party-government which started in the following year. Further, we cannot share your confidence in the two-party system, the defects of which you admit. I have not space to elaborate the thesis, but in my view this two-party claim is historically a myth and politically a blunder. It has existed when there have been two very distinguished and sharply-opposed leaders ; Pitt and Fox, Gladstone and Disraeli are obvious examples. But at other times there have been, more often than not, very influential third (or fourth) parties or groups (such as the Radicals after 1832, the Peelites, the Irish and the early Labour Party).
If your two-party plea were to be taken seriously, it would mean now, or in the near future, Communists versus non-Communists, for this is where the most real and vital division lies. But in point of fact the ,country cannot today be straight-waiscoated into two and only two sets of opinion. Clearly there are four, each perhaps with shades and degrees but substantially distinct ; and I do not believe that under P.R. there would be more. I recognise of course that there are objections to P.R., but neither Socialists nor Conservatives have tried to see whether this country has not enough political sense to overcome them. French political instability, at which you hint, is due to quite other circumstances, and there are, on the other hand, various countries in which P.R. has worked very well. (1 believe that even in Britain it has produced good results in university constituencies!) At any rate its absence from our electoral arrangements today suggests that the two major political parties care little about minorities—a very serious indictment against them both. But the Socialists, it must be admitted, do not add insult to injury by rebuking Liberals for " splitting the vote " when they use such limited electoral influence as is left to them.
Cet animal est ties mechant : Quota on fattaque it se defend seems to be the attitude of Conservatives. It remains to be seen what they will say if the electoral gamble results in Labour gaining a clear majority of seats with a clear minority of votes.
I have not space to argue the essential differences, in emphasis and temperament more than in manifestoes, between Liberals and Conserva- tives ; but I assure you, sir, that they exist and will continue to exist until the progressive Conservatives (whose existence it would of course be foolish to deny) have the courage to emancipate themselves from their party machine and their less enlightened colleagues.—Yours, &c.,
Previous page
