TBB TABLET, March 16th, 1969

THE TABLET A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER AND REVIEW

PRO ECCLESIA DEI, PRO REGINA ET PATRIA

VOL. 199, No. 5834

FOUNDED IN 1840

LONDON, MARCH 15th, 1952

NINEPENCE

PUBLISHED AS A NEWSPAPER

ENCOURAGEMENTS AND DISCOURAGEMENTS

A Budget that both Helps and Hampers Industry THE PHANTOM DIVISIONS OF THE WEST Preparations for War and the Hope of Peace. By Wilfred Ryder

FROM A ROOFTOP IN MOSUL Reflections during a Visit to Iraq. By Robert Speaight

LEONARDO THE HUMANIST The Quincentenary Exhibition. By F . Sherwood Taylor

A LETTER FROM ROME

Raising the Roman Standards

MR. ELIOT ON THE SCREEN

By Freda Bruce Lockhart

THE PILGRIMAGE OF GRACE The Man on a Donkey. By Christopher Hollis

DRESSING BY THE LEFT T HE Budget has come as a welcome distraction for the Labour Party Leaders, for on the morning on which it was introduced Mr. Bevan and his friends scored a further victory in the Party meeting, insofar as no disciplinary action is to be taken against them. This is a measure of their strength, seeing how strong is the tradition of Party discipline in the movement, and how strong is the case for such discipline, since all political parties of the Left are constantly in danger of splitting.

The Bevanite revolt can easily be met as a matter of tactics, and Mr. Attlee and Mr. Morrison are skilled tacticians. It can be met by moving the whole leadership of the Party further to the Left : and there is no reason to think that this process of realigning themselves will prove either difficult or distasteful to Mr. Attlee and Mr. Morrison, both of whom showed before 1939 how easily they could use the rhetoric of much more reckless and advanced Left wing politics than they advocated when they found themselves in office. The Bevanite Argument

This can be demonstrated over and over again in modern political history, particularly in continental Socialist parties. The reason is at once simple and profound, that the active and ardent spirits in these movements are, as a general rule, good haters, moved to their political action by what they are against, by their animosities and resentments. They have grown up in a spirit of opposition, and very easily extend their hostility in other directions than that of the main enemy. This is accentuated by their professionalism, where they are men with no other interests except politics into which they can withdraw. Because politics have become the whole of their life, they feel a deep indignation when they are notably crossed. The Standing Orders of the Labour Party have been reimposed, orders which require the full acceptance of Party decisions.

Mr. Bevan, although he does not spring from the Chapel origins of Welsh Radicalism, as Lloyd George did, made contact with that tradition at the weekend when he affirmed the rights of conscience and stood out, like a political Martin Luther, saying he could do no other. Everyone should applaud declarations of the essential principle of the individual conscience in politics, which the Standing Orders of the Party expressly recognized by a conscience clause. The growth of the caucus, the discipline of the machine, is a great threat to Parliament, to the prestige of members. But those in control of political machines, while they are prepared to tolerate critical speeches, and, more reluctantly, abstentions, are not prepared to tolerate votes cast against them by those who are elected to support the Party. This is particularly true as it has become increasingly clear that the merits and personality of the candidate hardly matter at all, and the loyal Labour voter gives an automatic vote.

There is grave danger that, distracted by the view-hallo of personalities, people will forget what are the real arguments of the Bevanites. Whatever our disagreements with Mr. Bevan, we must also agree with him that “ this obscene preoccupation with individual lives and careers ought to give way to a much more dispassionate and objective examination of the facts.”

The Bevanite arguments are two, one worthy and one unworthy. The unworthy argument is, “We will have rearmament, so long as it does not touch the standard of living of the workers.” This is but claptrap. But the worthy argument, to which competent expression was given by Mr. Crossman in last week’s debate, is, “ How can we rearm unless we export to buy the raw materials for rearmament ? What can we export on sufficient scale except manufactured goods, which are made out of the same raw materials as armaments ? Therefore, if we concentrate too much of our energy on armaments, we shall not in fact get armaments.”

It may be asked how far the Bevanites are themselves responsible for the fact that, if we are to fulfil the programme, we have now “too much” to do in too short a time. It may be asked what sense there is at such a moment as this in complicating an already too complicated problem by undertaking exaggerated commitments under the Colombo Plan. It is becoming increasingly improbable that rearmament will in fact much exceed the Bevan figure. But the curiosity about the Bevan programme is surely this. The first question which we have to answer is obviously, “Do we think that there is a real danger of a Russian attack ? ” If the answer to that question is “Yes,” then, whatever its inconveniences, we must