The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1930. THE BRITISH CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 413, 3 November 1930, Page 6

The Wanganui Chronicle MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1930. THE BRITISH CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

’THERE is something radically wrong with the Conservative Party in England. This internal trouble has lasted for a long time now and is still making itself felt—lienee the meeting to decide whether Mr Baldwin should continue as the Partyleader.

The problem possibly was started by Benjamin Disraeli himself tvhen he transformed a party of resistance into a party of progression. When the Conservative Party relied upon the landed interests and the established Church of England for its main support it was only natural for it to be a reactionary party, resisting legislation, delaying change and conserving privilege, place and power. True, Lord Shaftesbury did noble work and was ultimately successful in legislating on behalf of tiny children and women working in mines and factories under indescribable conditions. But Shaftesbury ascribed his ultimate victory in this benevolent and necessary legislation to a majority in the House of Commons which was actuated, not by love of his cause, but by a hatred of Sir Robert Peel who had started the repeal of the Corn Laws. Hatred has seldom been more useful, but it can never be the permanent driving force behind humane legislation.

it is the characteristic of the Jew that he has no respect for political tradition. His own traditions are not racy of our soil, hence he can ever have a free mind in politics. This trait was prominent in Disraeli’s character. He started as a radical and then went over to the Conservative camp; but he remained a radical in mind. He saw clearly that the problem which confronted British polities on the home front was “the condition of England.” This problem he siezed and stated in his novel, “Sybil.” It was his genius that perceived the necessity for accommodating the Conservative Party to the new order and he did this under the cry for a “Tory democracy.” Tory democracy. admitted the Democratic principle in a way; but Disraeli wanted to make use of the British aristocracy, which is indeed the finest aristocracy in the world. The aristocracy had a definite and valuable contribution to make to public life and Disraeli’s policy was to preserve it to public life. None will deny that English public life has been enriched thereby. While Disraeli did this, however, he admitted the fact that Democracy in England was inevitable. Nevertheless the Conservative Party has never become completely democratic. Britain has been described ns a “Democracy disciplined by snobbery.” Conservatism has supplied the snobbery and snobbery is, at best, social blindness and at worst, an unmannerly assertion of a spurious status. A snobbish party is hard to lead because it isn't sure of itself, it is afraid, like the individual snob, that with every step it takes that it will be found out. But the leaven of democracy has remained working. Despite Lord Salisbury placing his nephew, Arthur Balfour, in the leadership of the Conservative Party and the ignoring of the democratic principle in this regard, it was this same principle operating which brought about Mr Balfour's dismissal and Mr Bonar Laws elevation in his stead. Then the progressives in the party wanted more movement. Mr Baldwin was duly elected to his leadership; but the same cause, which brought about Mr Balfour's downfall, the desire for increased movement has threatened Mr Baldwin, and he has had to submit his leadership to the vote of the party. In his little book on “Conservatism” Lord Hugh Cecil lays it down that the cardinal idea of that political ereed is authority. It is for the few to give orders and for the many to obey without any reasoning why. An illustration of the principle was given at the Conservative Party Conference held at Yarmouth in 1928. when a delegate .moved that the leaders should consult the rank and file before embarking on any new policy. The ehairman said bluntly that if the rank and file interfered with the policy the party would soon be down and out and the conference rejected the motion without more ado.

The Conservative Party can. by reason of its composition rub along quite satisfactorily under a dominant personality or when it has a clear cut proposition in front of it. But when the leader is not a dominant personality, and Mr Baldwin is certainly not such, and when the issue is not clear cut, and the present problem of British polities is indeed complex, the Conservative Party finds its composition troublesome. The inert element, the people who desire to stand still and do nothing, tend to seperate off from those who desire action. This creates the first division. Secondly, there are those who are prepared to accept whatever policy that the leader may enunciate. Thirdly, there arc those who have definite ideas as to what should be done.'and this group of course is not of one mind and mouth. With democratic machinery available the various groups in a party can make themselves felt; but the absence of such democratic machinery leaves intrigue and subversive methods only available to those in the party who disagree with their leader’s policy,