Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

IN

THE TORY SOCIALIST

N the elections of October, 1924, the Conservative party won an almost unprecedented victory, and beyond any possibility of dispute it was a victory of Conservatism over Socialism. Will that victory be used for the purpose for which it was won?

To this fundamentally important question history unfortunately suggests a reply in the negative. During the long period when Whigs and Tories, or Liberals and Conservatives, were the only two political parties, it frequently happened that a Tory victory meant, not the reversal of the Whig or Liberal policy-which the electors had presumably condemned-but a continuation of that policy and often an extension of it. One might almost imagine that Conservatives were traditionally ashamed or afraid of their own principles. Curiously enough, even to-day those Conservatives who make a point of their determined loyalty to Conservative principles are known as "die-hards "—a nickname which obviously implies that the only hope for the staunch Conservative is to die in the last ditch. It is worth while to ask why this attitude has been developed and whither it is likely to lead.

It may safely be said that the Conservative practice during the past hundred years of surrendering, as soon as they had won the battle, the issues for which they had been fighting, was due to the rapidly changing conditions of our social life. A century ago, and even less, social life throughout the United Kingdom was based upon aristocratic privilege. Decade by decade the power of the aristocracy declined as industrialism grew. With this evidence of rapid change before their eyes the defenders of aristocratic privileges became painfully conscious that they were playing a losing game. They might occasionally win an electioneering victory through the mistakes of their opponents, but they realised that if they were to survive as a party they must rest their position on popular support.

It must be remembered also that in the last century it was possible for Tories to seek a form of popular support which the Liberals at first rather shunned. Through the greater part of the nineteenth century the Liberals, who were then essentially a

middle-class party, adhered to the tradition that the main purpose of Liberalism was the defence of liberty against privilege. During that period many of the strongest supporters of the Liberal party represented the new capitalism, which was to a large extent hostile to the growing claims of the wage-earning classes. These facts gave to the Tories the opportunity of putting themselves forward as the friends of the working man. In that role they achieved considerable success. They took a leading part in factory legislation; they were responsible for a far-reaching extension of the franchise in 1868, and for the extremely important Act of 1875, which extended the legitimate powers of trade unions, while protecting the public against the dangers involved in a strike of gas-workers or railway workers. Moving in the same direction, many Tories later on became keen supporters of the policy of improving the lot of the poorer classes with the aid of government subsidies. Those Tories who adopted this policy were probably not thinking solely, or even primarily, of possible political advantages. For many generations it has been the practice of the English landed aristocracy to help their poorer neighbours with lavish charity. The policy now generally known as "social reform " is, in essence, a continuance of this practicewith the important difference that the charity is now to be provided, not voluntarily out of the pocket of a wealthy squire, but compulsorily out of the pocket of every taxpayer, rich or poor.

But though the idea of wholesale State charity seems to have first germinated in Tory minds, the Liberals were quick to perceive its electoral value. Gratuitous old age pensions and heavily subsidised insurances for sickness and unemployment may, or may not, be defensible on their own merits, but their political purpose was to demonstrate that the Liberal party was the friend of the poor. Therefore, even if the old political division between Liberalism and Conservatism had continued, there would have been little gain to the Conservatives in posing as champions of social reform. On that issue the Liberals could always outbid the Tories, for the sufficient reason that the Tory party is more dependent on the type of elector who provides the bulk of the public revenue.

A similar consideration applies with even greater force to-day. Conservatives are compelled to think of the interests of the taxpayer as well as of those of the poorer voter. Their experience of

business life makes them conscious that heavy taxation is an injury to trade, and that it may, by checking industrial expansion, aggravate the very evils that social reform is intended to alleviate. The only alternative party to-day-the Labour party-has no such qualms. The electors to whom it appeals are for the most part indifferent to the interests of the taxpayer. A reference in a public speech to the burden of taxation generally leaves a popular audience cold. The large majority of the electorate pays no direct taxation, and very few people are actively conscious of the incidence of indirect taxes. Socialists, therefore, run little electoral risk in advocating unlimited taxation for the purpose of subsidising poverty. Even more important is the consideration that Socialists have a motive of their own for increasing taxation; it is part of their policy to use taxation as an instrument for the destruction of capitalism by way of prelude to the establishment of the Socialist paradise.

In face of these fairly obvious facts it is curious that any group of Tories should still imagine that they can strengthen their party by lavish promises of public expenditure on social reforms. Yet such a group undoubtedly exists and undoubtedly influences the policy of the party. These Tory Socialists-for that is what, in effect, they are often attempt to justify their policy by arguing that grave danger would arise if the issue between the two surviving political parties were reduced to the issue between socialism and anti-socialism. Sooner or later-so the argument runs-the Conservatives will exhaust their popularity, and the country will turn to the only alternative party, the Labour party. That party will then come into office with power to give full effect to the whole Socialist programme. It is an ugly picture, but the men who draw it will themselves be responsible if it should ever become a reality.

It is impossible to fight socialism by offering semi-socialism. If the electors are to be taught by members of parliamentprofessing to be Conservative-that all the ills of mankind can be cured by State control and State charity, they will naturally respond by voting for the party which whole-heartedly believes that the State should be the universal guardian and the universal providence. The only way to combat the spread of the Socialist creed is by insisting on the evils that must result from excessive State interference. The average Englishman, and perhaps even

more, the average Scotsman, is still able fully to appreciate the importance of self-help; most people still realise the responsibilities of parenthood, and there are very few who do not value personal liberty. The nearer we draw to socialism through the avenue of social reform the more are these qualities weakened, these opportunities diminished. A type of mind is created that will even welcome the slavery of socialism as an escape from the difficulties of self-dependence. Happily there is little reason to believe that the majority of the present Conservative party fully accepts the fallacious reasoning of the Tory Socialist. The average Conservative view, so far as one can gather, is better expressed, for example, by the Hon. Oliver Stanley, member for Westmoreland. Writing in English Life, for December, 1924, Mr. Stanley says:

The Conservative believes excessive interference by the State to be as dangerous as excessive indifference, and that the duty of the State should be limited to the prevention of injuries to the general good of the community, and to the protection and assistance of the individual in cases where he cannot help himself.

It is probable that this well-balanced statement represents the general creed of the Conservative party, but the danger from the Tory Socialist still remains. Obsessed with the delusion that poverty can be removed by subsidising the poor, the Tory Socialist will bring all his influence to bear to convert any schemes that may be devised for dealing with the risks of life-such as the suggested scheme for All-in-insurance-into new forms of State charity, with the result that what should be an insurance will become a dole. The Labour leaders will at once respond by proclaiming that as soon as the Labour party is returned to office the dole will be made bigger.

The political danger involved is all the more serious because at any moment the Conservative party may find itself once more involved in the old fiscal controversy. If that should happen, a large number of Liberals and very many Conservatives who voted for Mr. Baldwin at the last election, will certainly swing over to the Labour party, and the Socialists may win a majority with the aid of non-socialist votes. In that event, under our existing constitution, there would be no barrier to protect the country from any socialistic measures that the Labour party chose to put forward.

The importance of this consideration can hardly be exaggerated. By the Parliament Act of 1911, the revising power of the House of Lords was abolished, and uncontrolled power was conferred upon the House of Commons. No other important country in the world possesses such a dangerously unbalanced constitution. All other great nations have realised the importance of placing some check upon the power of groups of politicians temporarily possessing a majority in a popularly elected assembly. In the United Kingdom there is no such check. A Socialist ministry, even if its majority in the House of Commons were quite small, would become possessed of absolutely autocratic powers. It could prolong its own life indefinitely by repealing that clause of the Parliament Act which limits the duration of a parliament to five years; it could abolish the throne if it felt so inclined; it could pass measures for the wholesale confiscation of private property; it could sweep away the safeguards for individual liberty which Englishmen have evolved by centuries of patient effort. That many members of the Labour party would gladly do all these things is evident from the support given by prominent Labourites to the brutal tyranny established by the Russian Soviet. When the Bill that has now become the Parliament Act was under debate, all Conservatives appreciated the dangers that it involved; all were unanimous in denouncing it. That measure was only passed with the aid of Irish votes, cynically purchased by the promise of Home Rule; it was forced through the House of Lords by the threat to utilise the Royal Prerogative for the purpose of creating a sufficient number of new peers to overcome the resistance of the Lords. When politicians like Mr. Asquith, with an honourable tradition behind them, could sink to such dishonourable action, it is childish to rely on a complacent assumption that no future politicians will venture to abuse the autocratic power now possessed by any ministry commanding a majority in the House of Commons.

The most urgent of all the duties incumbent upon the present ministry is to undo the mischief done by the Parliament Act of 1911, and to provide safeguards against a repetition of the proceedings which rendered the passing of that Act possible. Yet, curiously enough, there has been no mention of this problem in the various public announcements of the intended programme of the Baldwin ministry. The members of the Cabinet seem

« AnteriorContinuar »