WE ARE now entering the final stages of
this protracted and Election. What a pity
we could not all have gone on together,
till the Japanese war was finished. I
deeply regret the responsible Socialist
leaders were unable to prevail upon their
Party to accept this offer, which was made
by me in a sincere spirit of goodwill arid
public duty. When Mr. Attlee
proposed to me an amendment in my hopes
that our nation would have retained its
united strength until at least the cannon
had ceased to thunder and the great
struggle at the other end of the world had
been completed. I have no doubt that he,
and those associated with him, did their
best but they could make no headway
against the extreme forces which dominate
the Socialist Party and are lusting for a
violent and revolutionary change. The only
comfort is that we have not got to go on
with this Party strife and malice under a
thin skin of co-operation, all through the
summer and autumn to an October Election,
when our difficulties at home and abroad
will certainly not be less than they are
now. During the last week an astonishing
event has happened, which should open all
eyes to the kind of Government which a
Socialist administration would produce,
and, still more, to the foundations upon
which it would rest. I invited Mr. Attlee,
the titular leader of the Socialist Party,
to come with the British delegation to the
momentous Conference which is to open in
July before the results of this Election
can be declared. I thought it was a fair
offer and made in the public interest. Mr.
Attlee accepted the offer in the same
spirit as it was made. All of a sudden there leaped into
notoriety a certain Professor
Laski, one of those figures of the
Socialist movement who, while they do not
care to face a Parliamentary Election,
claim to exercise authority over the
responsible Socialist Leaders. Mr. Attlee
was sharply given his instructions that,
if he went, he could only go as an
observer and that there could be no
continuity in the foreign policy of this
country at the present time. So far Mr.
Attlee has refused to toe the line and, in
a courageous letter, he has accepted my
invitation to come as a friend and a
counsellor. We do not know how the fight will end,
but the fact that Professor Laski should
feel himself armed with such powers over
the accepted Leader of the Socialist Party
shows very clearly the strange and
embarrassing position which will be
occupied in a Socialist Government by the
Ministers of the Crown. No doubt, if you
penetrated into this tangle, you would
find many more Laskis. It is a case of big
fleas have little fleas on their backs to
bite 'em little fleas have lesser fleas,
and so ad. infinitum. If the evil stopped
there, it would be a matter for humorous
mirth. But now we see quite clearly that
Socialist Ministers, if a Socialist
Government were returned, even at the
present critical time would not be free
agents, but would be compelled, even on
questions of foreign policy, to submit
their decisions to the Laskis and many
obscure and secret committees, and would
not have free, untrammeled responsibility
to Parliament and the nation. They would have to impart all the
secret matters affecting foreign nations
to a committee or committees, over which
some Laski or other would preside, and it
would only be after its assent had been
obtained, that they would be permitted to
come out and make resounding speeches in
the House of Commons. The responsible Socialist Leaders can
of course rid themselves from this charge
for the time being by dismissing, as they
should do, Mr. Laski from their counsels.
Otherwise it will be clear that their
status before the public if they
themselves were to obtain office, would
only be as wire-pulled puppets. It seems
to me very important for them to rid
themselves of this stain. The British people have always hitherto
wanted to have their affairs conducted by
men they know, and that these men work
under the scrutiny and with the approval
of the House of Commons. All this brings me back to the general
arguments against a full and complete
Socialist system, which I used to you
about a fortnight ago. I warned you that
it could not be established in its
entirety -- of course there may be
intervening stages -- without the
abolition of Free Parliaments without the
denial of the rights of opposition as
hitherto practiced in this country and the
institution of a political police. I ought
to have added, the denial of the right to
strike, on which the power of collective
bargaining depends. How could there be the
power of collective bargaining with the
State, when the State would be the supreme
and sole authority? The Trade Unions would
have no power as against the Socialist
State; nor r would the individual workman
have the right and power to change his job
freely as he may choose. To look after
this alone would require a political
police, with their agents and spies in the
factories to look out for disaffected
men. [. . . .
and more of the same
vein] |
write to David
Irving