Stry—Let us hope Ian Simpson's forefathers had a sturdier Liberalism
than his. Surely his attitude explains why we have so few Liberals in the House. Had all stood by their principles and voted Liberal and not Conservative (as many did), we should have done much better. If so many of the Conservative members think as we do, why on earth don't they do as Mr. Churchill elk' in the 1900's—join us outright? His best work was done in those years. It was a great pity he ever became leader of the Conservatives ; but perhaps the "pull of the race" was too strong as he grew older and was disheartened by the years between the two wars. The Conservatives under Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Chamber- lain made too many mistakes, and the Liberals would lose as many votes to Labour by joining the Conservatives as they would gain. Had Mr. Baldwin implemented the Sankey Report—or Mr. Samuel—the coalfields would now be running smoothly. Suppose, for a change, the Conserva- tives agreed not to contest an undoubted Liberal seat, and gave us a straight fight with Labour. Had they given us Proportional Representation when we wanted it, they and we would be in a better position in the House. They see it now—too late.
It is the waverers like Mr. Simpson who harm Liberalism—and I don't see that the "large body of unenquiring electors" can be made to have much respect for the party that knuckles under. Isn't it possible that such an out-and-out attack against Socialism -as Ian Simpson suggests would lead to more Communism? The Socialists are carrying to extremes much that Liberals believe in.
A genuine coalition, yes—with the best brains of all parties—but how can we deny our Liberalism when it is so badly needed?—Yours
truly, ANNA W. SIMMONS.
14 Stream Park, Pal bridge, East Grinstead.
Previous page
