The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 1950. British Labour Policy

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26199, 24 August 1950, Page 6

The Press THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 1950. British Labour Policy

Ever since the British Labour' Party's neaf-defeat last February, every sign which might indicate the direction of the party’s future policy has been studied with interest. As “ The Times ” has suggested. the 1945 General Election victory was misread by many as a victory for Socialism, when in fact it was a victory for social reform and economic reconstruction, and for new measures and new men to carry them out. Most of the errors of the Labour Government arose from this misreading—from the belief that they were called upon to construct forthwith something which could be called Socialist democracy by piling nationalisation upon nationalisation ahd adding control to control. This year’s General Election showed that popular opinion, after gauging the impact of real problems on Socialist theories, was not impressed by Socialism in practice. To thoughtful elements in the party itself came the knowledge that the stoutest pillars of its platform having been found wanting, the whole structure would need to be overhauled if the party was to regain the support it enjoyed in 1945. A statement just issued, entitled “ Labour and the New Society ”, gives some inklings of the party’s ideas about overhaul. The cabled siflnmary of the statement (printed on Tuesday) gives more emphasis to an international proposal than to domestic issues. It would be uncharitable to describe a proposal for a world plan for mutual aid (after Marshall Aid has ended) as “ window-dressing \and the British Labour Party can claim that the proposal expresses its reformist tradition in the intetnatidhal field. But the proposal is not new. The part which deals with underdeveloped countries is covered by President Truman’s “ Fourth “Point” enunciated in January, 1949. There is already international machinery—the World Bank, the Monetary Fund, United States lending agencies—to deal with developed countries. It is no doubt true that more impetus could be given to international work for world economic stability; but the practical task would fall, after all; mainly on the United States.

On domestic issues the statement, it is explained, avoids precise commitments. Labour stands by Britain’s rearfnament commitments—which is a change frotn the party’s policy in- the 1930’s—but the “ stand ” carries responsibilities which have yet to be fulfilled. The statement recognises Cominonwealth agriculture as “ comple- “ mentary ” to British industry. It soundly warns that Britain will not hold its own in World markets against revived competition from Germany and Japan unless Britain can sell at competitive prices. Perhaps it Will be found, when the full statement is available, that more is said about these interesting and important subjects. As a defihition of political fiblicy, the statement is of interest when it touches the questions of nationalisation, private enterprise, and rewards for initiative, enterprise, and endeavour. The party is clearly retreating from its nationalisation policy. The proposals in the last election programme for taking over sugar, cold storage, and meat wholesaling have been dropped, though the party will go on with the nationalisation of iron and steel. Emphasis is now, it is stated, oh improving efficiency in the industries already under State ownership. It appears from this that the party, while recognising and acknowledging deficiencies in nationalisation policy, is not ready Or able—no doubt for reasons of party expediency—to undertake a thorough ideological spring-clean-ing. However, an ideological concession to private enterprise is implied; in Labour’s “New Society” private enterprise is assured of “ a “ proper place in the community The statement turns away from more extreme Socialist dogma when it asserts that “ Labour “emphatically does not believe in “ dead-level equality. To stimulate “ increased production there must “ be reasonable rewards for initi- “ ative, enterprise, and endeavour ”. In brief, the “ New Society ” planned by the executive of the British Labour Party and outlined in its statement seeks to have something of both worlds. The party has the good sense—and it is politically expedient—to recognise and apply lessons taught by facts and by popular opinion. However, it remains to be seen whether the “ new socialism ”, moving ever nearer to the “ new conservatism ”, will be accepted by the party as a whole and, as the major political test, whether it will be endorsed eventually by the electorate.