BALDWINISM A DANGER TO THE WORLD. WANTED, A COALITION GOVERNMENT.
THE DEADLOCK AND THE WAY OUT
The ordinary game of politics bores me, and I rarely write about it.
The manœuvres of X., Y., and Z. to get towards the head of the queue
of possible tenants of No. 10, Downing Street, fill me with that cold
disgust we all feel for vices to which we are not inclined. I have
wanted many things in life, but never “place.” The “party game” I have
loathed from my youth up. My primary interest in the Labour Party was
that it promised to end that game. Alas! it has only made it worse.
But there are times when some attention has to be paid to these
detestable sports. Normally it matters very little to most of us
whether the income tax is decreased or increased a little by X. or
Y. or Z., and whether it is Z. or A. who damps our hopes for the
education of the country. The Westminster permanent officials run
their departments in very much the same manner whether it is a Tory
or a Liberal or a Labour man who intervenes trivially in their sway.
Why should I care whether it is Mr. Baldwin pretending to be a simple,
honest farmer, or Mr. Ramsay MacDonald pretending to be a romantic
gentleman, at 10, Downing Street?
Normally there is no reason at all. But it happens that this is an
abnormal time, and, like millions of my fellow-countrymen, I wake up to
find that this Baldwin Government, which we considered merely narcotic
and drowsed under inattentively, is the most dangerous government that
Britain has ever had. Its peculiar danger is that it has learnt nothing
from the war, that its stupidity is not the passive stupidity we hoped
and believed, but a very active stupidity, so that at three cardinal
points it has set things moving in the direction of war.
In the first place, it has carried its support of the aggressive
and reactionary Mussolini dictatorship to a pitch which amounts to a
virtual betrayal of both France and the republican régime in Germany.
We are under great obligations to France. In the past I criticized
French policy when it seemed to be obsessed by a blind hostility
to Germany, because I believed, and I still believe, that upon the
development of a Franco-German friendship hangs all the hope we have
of a great future for Europe. A liberal France, a liberal Germany in
accord--the European future is utterly black without that accord.
But to criticize France when she is aggressive is one thing, and to
undermine her position in Europe is quite another. This tawdry, unclean
tyranny in Italy insults and threatens France. Would it dare do that
alone? without American money and British moral support? without the
hope that if it can entangle France in a conflict, all the suppressed
barbarism of the other side in Germany, the side which is now the
under-side, will flare up to its assistance? And this “safe” Government
of ours in Britain moves not a finger to arrest this advancing
disaster, can find no better rôle to play in such a European situation
than that of Mussolini’s friend.
Next comes the failure to get to an understanding with the United
States upon the issue of disarmament. At the present time, as Kenworthy
has demonstrated in the completest fashion in his recent book, Great
Britain and the United States are arming against each other. Do people
realize the significance of this? Neither country has, for example, an
educational organization adequate to its needs and opportunities, and
yet vast sums are being squandered, upon the advice of military and
naval “experts,” on military and naval preparations that are bringing
these two countries, with the same language, a common culture, and a
long tradition of mutual forbearance, more and more into the attitude
of armed rivals. The Baldwin Government has its excuses for its failure
at Geneva. It puts the blame on the American representatives. But who
wants its excuses? Its failure is a crime.
Thirdly, we have the Russian muddle. For an amount of espionage and
propaganda not much, if at all, greater than that normally practised
by all the chief governments of the world--a publication like “Asia,”
for example, coming from New Hampshire, is far more efficient as
anti-imperialist propaganda than anything the Russians have ever
done--the Russian representatives in London were expelled in the most
insulting manner, and the premises of the Russian Trade Delegation
burgled. Ministers like Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Churchill reviled the
régime in Russia unpardonably. What are the results? Trade is broken
off. A market particularly desirable for the manufacturers of Great
Britain is more or less closed. The world in general, and Russia in
particular, is impressed with the idea that Great Britain is _the_
enemy of the Soviet Government.
Naturally that Government does its best to retaliate. What would you do
if you were a Russian? We British _oblige_ the Russian Government to
press on with whatever propaganda it conducts against us in Asia--in
Turkey, China, India especially. What else can you imagine it doing?
And it was totally unnecessary to stimulate this hostility and embitter
this enemy. The antagonism was dying down. Intercourse was increasing.
Trade was improving.
Now all that has been put back. The British have grimaced threats at
Russia until now there is an active propaganda in Russia to prepare
that people for the attack the blusterings of such Ministers as Mr.
Churchill and the Home Secretary seem to forebode. And Britain trains
a highly mechanicalized expeditionary force. So behind Britain and
Central Asia, in the heart of Europe and across the Atlantic, the
spectre of war becomes more threatening, more substantial, less of a
phantom and more of a possibility, with every month of this Government
rule. Throughout the world the present British Government has been
evoking the war idea and the war spirit.
I will say nothing of the social war this Government has waged at
home. Grave as that is, it is dwarfed by the monstrous dangers of the
international situation. I will not say that the British Government
wants war--with two possible exceptions among its members. But it
is stupid; its stupidity is that sort of mental inflexibility which
makes men inadaptable to new circumstances. It goes on upon the old
diplomatic, militarist, nationalist, and competitive lines that
carried Europe so inevitably to the smash of 1914, and it has not the
imagination to see plainly how surely it drives to another smash. If
the present British Government remains in office for another five years
that smash, I believe, will come.
I am not indulging here in single-handed prophecy. What I am writing
here is realized now more or less lucidly by an immense multitude of
observers. It lies upon the surface of things, just as the war of
1914 lay plainly on the surface of things for years before it came.
And one might reasonably imagine that this great multitude would set
about preparing to push the Government out of office effectively and
thoroughly, would make sure of a complete purge of its supporter at
the next general election. Nothing could be further from the reality
of the case. The same want of imagination that allows the British
Government to drum along with international bickerings and military
preparations towards a new great war robs the huge majority of people
who are against the Government of any effective coherence. The Great
War seems to have passed over the politicians in opposition with as
small intellectual profit as it has over the Ministers in office.
In the face of a rapidly approaching disaster that may wreck civilized
life, these people go on with the old tricks and the old antics that
distinguished political life in those days of apparently eternal
security when good Queen Victoria sat upon the throne. They do not seem
to see that there is any situation or any stream of events outside
the little arena in which they manœuvre against each other for office
and the petty glories of a party triumph. Two figures in particular
I contemplate with blank amazement. One is Sir Herbert Samuel. I am
loth to believe him as silly as his public proceedings. But of their
immense silliness there can be no doubt. He is the figure-head of
pure party Liberalism. He is the typical advocate of the candidature
of those five hundred Liberal candidates who are everywhere to wage
implacable warfare against the Labour Party. Everywhere they are to
busy themselves in breaking up the peace vote and, if they cannot get
in themselves, letting in the Tory--and war.
Over against him is Ramsay MacDonald, a figure of fantastic vanity and
secretiveness, equally resolute on keeping the Labour Party in bitter
antagonism to the Liberals--though the heavens fall. The poor little
“Daily Herald” under his influence spends most of its ammunition on the
Liberals, and the mere whisper of “coalition” is treated like an attack
upon fundamental political virtue. The implacable stupidity of both
these groups, the pure party Liberals and the pure party Labourites,
exceeds even the unteachable stupidity of the Government policy. And
they are helping it forward. When the bombs begin to burst and the
smash comes Sir Herbert Samuel and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, because of
their inveterate party spirit, will be as responsible for the disaster
as Mr. Amery or Mr. Baldwin.
But the question I have been asking myself and most of the people I
have been meeting lately is, “What are we personally going to do about
it?” Like the majority of people in Great Britain, I want a coalition
of the Liberal and Labour Parties. That plainly is our salvation. I
realize--surely everyone realizes--that the internal legislation and
the foreign policy of a Liberal Government in Great Britain for the
next ten years at least would be substantially the same as that of a
Labour Government. Of the two Mr. MacDonald is the least likely to
move a step towards Socialism. The pretence of any irreconcilable
fundamental differences does not deceive 5 per cent. of the British
Electorate. The Liberals might be rather more economical and skimpy
over social services and the Labour people more snobbish and more
extravagant over the army, navy, and air services. The blend might
indeed be better than either party, faults might cancel out. And since
I am convinced that people like Sir Herbert Samuel and Mr. Ramsay
MacDonald are incurably set upon their party follies, I am obliged,
we are obliged, to cast about for other figures upon which we may
concentrate our enthusiasm and to whom we may look for some sort of
leadership beyond mere party strategy in the approaching struggle.
One’s mind turns to Mr. Lloyd George. He is a seasoned Coalitionist,
and he is plainly disposed towards another Coalition. He has made
alluring gestures towards the left, but an unusual hesitation to return
them is apparent. Plainly Labour, though it may work with him, will not
put itself under him.
And that applies not merely to the party-obsessed Labour people.
We all like Mr. Lloyd George, but at times he veils his solid worth
beneath an agility and flexibility that leaves us uneasy. I do not
know if we can look at him to play a secondary rôle in a combination.
It would necessarily be a very considerable rôle. And, after all, he
is technically a Liberal, and the majority of the anti-Government mass
is Labour. The headship of any combination for the preservation of
peace in the world should reside in the majority. The leader should
be a Labour man. This also excludes Lord Cecil, with his traditional
attitude towards Church and land, from the formal leadership. So one
turns to the Labour Party and looks for a Coalitionist there.
I consider Henderson, Thomas, Clynes, all surely Ministers in a
coalition, but none of them quite what we require as a figure-head.
Then I come to Snowden and stop. There, I believe, is the man who can
best lead the British Empire, under a Coalition Government, back to
sanity, security, and the service of peace. There is a certain quality
of greatness about Snowden which is not very widely distributed in our
political world to-day. I suppose that among statesmen, politicians,
and public servants of all types and parties, Philip Snowden is more
generally respected and would be more willingly trusted than any other
contemporary. He is a man whose public character, quite as much as his
private character, is without spot or blemish. He is a man of real
capacity and great personal force. He is the man we want. And I do not
see why we, the growing multitude of British people who want to get rid
of this dangerous Government of ours who do not care a rap either way
for the Liberal “machine” or the Labour “machine,” should not set about
getting him now.
Would he serve us? Probably not at first. He might plead his
allegiance to his party. But there are popular invitations that have
the force of commands. Would Mr. Lloyd George work with him? I do not
know. Mr. Lloyd George has neither the narrow-mindedness of Sir Herbert
Samuel nor the lonely vanity of Mr. MacDonald. He is quite capable of
magnanimity; and for him also a strong popular feeling, effectively
expressed, might have imperative force. Many of the dissentient
Liberals, on account of minor feuds and unforgettable sayings during
those feuds, would, I know, serve much more gladly under Snowden as a
leader than under Lloyd George.
But at the present stage of affairs I do not see why we should wait
upon the Tadpoles and Tapers to fix up this arrangement for us. The
growing multitude of people who see things in this way has the power
to force this combination over the heads of the party managers. We can
write; we can organize; we are not without a Press. Why wait while the
leaders negotiate?
At the next election it will be comparatively simple for us to
disregard the difference between Liberalism and Labour altogether.
When we find ourselves in any constituency where a Liberal is trying
to cut down a Labour majority or where a Labour candidate is trying to
cut down a Liberal majority, we can vote solidly for the legitimate
claimant to the seat, whether he be Liberal or Labour. When we hear
the Liberal beginning to make his little points against Labour or the
Labour man chipping the Liberal, instead of getting on to the real
business in hand, the proper comment is a loud “Bah!” repeated until
the gentleman takes notice. Then we shall get the maximum number of
Liberals and Labour men into the House of Commons, and when they are
there they will have to shake down into a coalition whether they like
it or not.
The Labour Party is surely not so foolish as to take office in a
minority again, with the Liberals primly in possession of what Sir
Herbert Samuel calls the “casting vote,” and equally will the Liberals
refuse to shoulder responsibility alone. Everybody in Parliament
knows that Coalition waits at the end of the passage even if a second
election intervenes. Why have the expense and delay of a second
election? As practical people with an empire to save, let us get on to
that coalition now.
_27 November, 1927._