(7 of 8)
Nevertheless, the welfare state is in Britain to stay, barring economic calamity. The argument between Tories and Socialists is not whether the welfare state is a good or bad thing; the scramble is for the credit of having invented it. No British politician would now suggest abolishing it, any more than he would suggest abolishing state-paid policemen or firemen.
Dangers Ahead. What would happen if the Conservatives should win the election?
One Tory leader recently answered frankly: "We would run their Socialism a damn sight more efficiently than they do themselves."
And what if Labor should remain in power? Is Churchill right in saying that the Labor program seeks; unprecedented controls over British life?
Certainly men such as Clement Attlee are not avid for arbitrary power. But whatever they do or do not seek, it is a fact that Socialism destroys some of the bases of personal independence. Britain's strict labor control laws have been rarely invoked in the last five years. So far, only 657 applications for permission to change jobs have been actually refused, but the laws remain on the books and there is no doubt that thousands of workers are hesitant to change their jobs because of them. Some Laborites, e.g., Nye Bevan, regularly use the vocabulary of class warfare. Given a period of sharp economic stress, British Socialism might take an ugly, dictatorial turn.
Some contend that there is no "might" about it—that Socialism must necessarily drive more & more deeply into the liberties of the individual. On this point, Eric Gibbs, chief of TIME'S London Bureau, cabled an observation:
"So far as there is any actual experience of the working of Socialist governments in parliamentary democracies, the evidence seems to point the other way. Instead of the Socialist machine accelerating in a grim geometric progression towards an infinity of state control, the British and Scandinavian models seem to have some inner friction or contradiction which soon brings them to a halt.
"In Britain, Norway, Sweden and Finland, whenever I have asked Socialist leaders about further nationalization, the reaction has usually been strangely identical: a slightly sheepish smile, an embarrassed shrug, some evasive words amounting to this: 'Don't get us wrong, we're still Socialists, mind you, but you see this isn't quite the time . . . etc. etc.' "
Tighten Your Belts. The British Labor Party has carried out a high proportion of the promises it made in 1945; yet many of its 1945 followers feel let down. These disillusioned Laborites are the Tory hope for Feb. 23.
One of them is Albert Sewell, a middle-aged schoolteacher who grew up in a working-class home. In the 1945 election, Sewell voted Labor. This year he will vote Conservative for the first time. "Labor's greatest failure," says Sewell vehemently, "is that it has not made ordinary working people realize that unless we first tighten our belts and then get down to the business of producing hell-for-leather, this country will go bankrupt and there will be millions out of work."