The Southland Times SATURDAY, JULY 28, 1945. Britain Turns To Labour

Southland Times, Issue 25736, 28 July 1945, Page 4

The Southland Times SATURDAY, JULY 28, 1945. Britain Turns To Labour

MOST political experts seem to have been confounded by the result of the British general election It was believed that Labour could win; but few observers, on either side, anticipated the sweeping nature of the victory. The special correspondent of the Press Association suggests that the . basic reason” for the landslide is the working people’s distrust of the Conservative Party, with which is associated the capitalistic system which, rightly or wrongly, is regarded as discredited.” It is never easy to disentangle the many and complex motives of voters, and on this occasion there were abnormal conditions which could scarcely be ignored. The British electorate is, on the whole, innately conservative — not because it supports the party which uses that particular label, but because in both major parties there is a preference for tradition and careful democracy that sometimes becomes irritating to the thoroughgoing radical. The British people, however, had not voted for nearly 10 years, and in that period they were spectators of, and actors in, events that changed the world. Foreign policy inevitably has an importance in Britain that is unknown in New Zealand. The Conservative Government's unhappy record in this field needs no further emphasis, and it must have had a considerable bearing on the result of the election. Moreover, a Government which has been in office for nearly 10 years (no matter how many Cabinet reshuffles may have occurred) must have a convincing case if it is to withstand the desire for a change of personalities and ideas that becomes noticeable in the electorate. It is doubtful if any strong doctrinaire influence can be found behind the change in public opinion. Both parties promised the people’ the same things. The people, said Mr C. R. Attlee, “need good homes, sufficient food, clothing and the amenities of life, employment and leisure, and social provision for accident, sickness and old age.” Mr Churchill made the same suggestions. It was in the selection of methods that the parties diverged. The divergence was made sharper than it need have been, however, by the exaggerations of propaganda. Most British critics are agreed that Mr Churchill’s first broadcast did harm to himself and to the Conservatives. The Economist, a liberal journal, described it as an “astonishing performance.” It dismissed as “complete nonsense” the charge that if Labour were returned its policy would require “a sort of Gestapo” for its enforcement, and that the savings of the people would be endangered. “As for the savings of the people, nothing proposed by the Labour ’ Party is likely to do one-tenth the damage that would certainly be inflicted by a hasty removal of controls. And as for a Gestapo, there are few groups of men less capable of moving in that direction than the leaders of the Labour Party, who have never been able to impose their wishes even on their own followers.”

How Much Socialism?

The Economist believed that Mr Attlee did much better than Mr Churchill; but it seemed to have difficulty in imagining him as the leader of an able administration. “One impression,” added the paper, “is that the bankruptcy of the’parties is even greater than was apparent before. The other is that such modicum of reasoned and constructive argument as has appeared has been almost entirely on the side of the Opposition.” It has now been shown that the electors reached the same opinion, though perhaps less grudgingly than The Economist. The major issue debated during the campaign was that of the removal or maintenance of controls. It became, inevitably, a controversy over the virtues and evils of socialism and private enterprise. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that there was anything in Labour’s policy which would have seemed startling in this country. Labour spokesmen were careful to insist that some controls must go as soon as possible; and they pointed especially to those (manpower, for instance) which really affect the freedom of the individual. “But others,” said Mr Attlee, “are still vitally needed to protect the public from profiteers and monopolists.” It will probably be found, when the new Government settles down to its task, that the controls retained will be those that even a Conservative Government would have hesitated to remove at the present time. The Laboui- Party’s “socialization” policy is comparatively modest. Mr Attlee spoke of “certain great basic industries which from then - nature are ripe for conversion into public services.” Specific mention was made of fuel, power, light, iron and steel, and inland transport. It can be assumed that, whatever happens to the iron and steel industries, the railways, coal mines and gas and electricity services will be , nationalized. Few Labour spokesmen seem to have looked beyond those objectives, and neither the Government nor the people may visualize any deeper plunge into socialism. There has never been anything dynamic or revolutionary in the ideas of British Labour. Some of the younger electors may have preferred a policy further to the left, although it must be significant that the Communist Party and the Common Wealth Party (which aims at a peculiarly British type of communism) secured only three seats between them. It can be said, with evident truth, that the people of Britain have responded to the radical temper which has grown up in Europe during the war. But they have responded in their own way, with a characteristic reliance on a party whose ideas belong more to the centre than to the left. The new Government will include men who, if not outstandingly brilliant, have an ability which was tested and proved in the coalition. And behind them is a nation which has reached a political maturity unequalled elsewhere. The new order in Britain may come slowly, and without sweeping changes; but it seems probable that this time the Labour Party will have its full opportunity to engraft its policy upon a society that values freedom and stability.