I come before you to-day as a Liberal with a Radical programme related to the conditions of to-day. I have become a Liberal candidate and Liberal member of Parliament, because I believe that in rebuilding a strong Liberal Party lies the best safeguard both for the essential British liberties and for the traditions to which Britain owes her greatness and her power for good in the world. What are these essential liberties? What are these Liberal traditions?

In a book which I have just published on Full Employment in a Free Society, I have defended the essential liberties as freedom of worship, speech, writing, study and teaching; freedom of assembly and of association for industrial, political and other purposes, including effective freedom to form new parties and change governments by peaceful methods; freedom of choice of occupation; and freedom in spending of a personal income. These liberties exclude any continuance when peace is established, of compulsory direction of labour or of rationing; they exclude, of course the continuance of regulations such as 18B.1 Most people of whatever party, in this country would probably agree upon these liberties, but it is not clear that all parties are equally good defenders of them. The essence of Liberalism is tolerance and during this war Liberals have shown a greater tolerance and different attitude towards Regulation 18B than other parties. That is why I say that Liberalism is the best safeguard of the essential liberties.

‘The vital Liberal traditions’

What are the vital Liberal traditions? I name three. The first is respect for the rights and independence of nations great and small. This is a Liberal tradition going back to the days of Gladstone. It is of vital importance to-day, for on it alone can international justice and hope of lasting peace be based. Only when the world has been made safe for small nations will it be safe for all nations.

The second is international economic co-operation. The Liberal Party stands in all circumstances against economic nationalism: it holds the faith that prosperity of one nation makes other nations prosperous, and rejects the false disruptive doctrine that nations are enemies in the economic sphere. Accordingly, the aim of Liberalism, in the future as in the past, should be to develop international trade as a means to a higher standard of life for all nations. But it will not be sufficient to trust to the negative methods of the past. That aim to-day must be pursued by more positive methods than simply leaving trade to itself. Nor is it enough to aim at the maximum of international trade; we must also have stability. But the new methods must be directed to the same end. Liberalism to-day stands, as it has always stood and as no other party stands, for the maximum of international co-operation of the economic sphere.

The third tradition of Liberalism is placing the common interest above every sectional interest. This makes a practical distinction between the Liberal Party and both the other great parties in the State, which may pay lip service to the common interest, but each of which is swayed by powerful sectional interests.

Those, briefly, are my reasons for being Liberal. What do I mean by having a Radical programme? I mean that the time calls for measures going to the roots of social injustice and of those giant evils of Want, Disease, Squalor, Ignorance and Idleness enforced by mass unemployment, which have disfigured Britain in the past. I believe that equally radical changes are needed in the international sphere, in order to establish the rule of law among nations and make it possible, in the words of the Atlantic Charter, for all men in all lands to live out their lives in freedom from fear. I cannot deal with that international problem at all to-night and I cannot set out the whole of the Radical Programme even in the domestic sphere. I select three points only, of immediate practical importance: Social Security for abolition of Want; Full Employment for abolition of mass-unemployment; a Housing Revolution for abolition of Squalor.

Abolition of want

The Government have just laid before Parliament White Papers, setting out proposals for a comprehensive, unified Social Insurance Scheme, covering all the different forms of interruption of earnings through unemployment, disability and old age, with children’s allowances, with provision for industrial injury made a social service at last in place of being a lawyer’s paradise. These proposals received a very general welcome in the House. Whatever happens, an immense development of our social services is nearly certain to come in the near future.

But the Government proposals, as they stand, fall definitely and deliberately short of the aim which I took in my Report two years ago of enabling the people of Britain to win Freedom from Want. They fall short of this, because the allowances proposed for children are inadequate, because the ultimate rate of pensions proposed is inadequate, because the principle of relating money rates of benefit and pensions to the cost of living is rejected, because there are unnecessary, arbitrary limits on the duration of unemployment benefit and sickness benefit.

“

Victory over Want is not yet won. Social Security is not yet won even in name. The Government proposals, as they stand, are an explicit rejection of the demand for Freedom from Want by adequate social insurance; they perpetuate a large measure of assistance subject to means test. But victory is in sight. It needs only a few changes in rates and periods of allowance, benefit and pension, and acceptance of the principle that money rates of benefit must be based on the cost of subsistence. These changes could be made easily. They will I hope be made by agreement, in this Parliament, before a General Election. That is how I would like to see Freedom from Want accomplished in this Country. I should be sorry to see social security become a subject of political auction at the next election, with each Party trying to outbid the other by promising higher rates of benefit or pensions. Freedom from Want is more important than making capital out of it for any Party. Freedom from Want, will, I hope, be achieved by agreement of all Parties within the war period, as something won for all the people of Britain by themselves in union out of the War.

But, if that happens, it will be fair to remember how it has come to be possible. It has become possible because the battle for social insurance, a new untried principle in Britain was fought and won, under the leadership of Mr Lloyd George, by great Liberal Government of 190614. In all that is being proposed to-day we are building a breakwater against Want, on the foundations that were laid in stormy water, by that Government thirtythree years ago. We should not be in sight of victory over Want to-day, if new ideas had not found their champions in the Liberal Party then. It is fair to point out also that though the proposals of my Report two years ago have received support from members of all-parties, the Liberal Party was the first officially and as a whole to give them unqualified complete support.

If we want more victories for new life-saving ideas in other fields, we must re-establish a Liberal Party again. Freedom from Want can be won, but is not yet won, and when it is won, is only the first and easiest of our post-war tasks.

‘Full employment in a free society’

Social Insurance and Children’s allowances can give income security, i.e., guarantee of an income sufficient for subsistence at all times. But that is not enough, because it is not enough to have an income at times when one cannot work; one must also have a job when one can work. Maintenance of employment and abolition of mass-unemployment are aims which are recognised by everyone in this country as essential. The only question is as to means. The Government have issued last June a White Paper on Employment Policy. About the same-time, as a private citizen, I prepared though it has only just been published a Report of Full Employment in a Free Society. Full Employment is defined there as a state of affairs in which there are always more vacant jobs than men and women looking for jobs, in which jobs rather than men have to wait. A Free Society is defined as one which preserves all the essential liberties which I have named above.

“

We abolish unemployment in a war because we decide that it is so essential to defeat the enemy that we will spend ourselves and our money for that purpose. We can abolish unemployment in peace on the same principle, by deciding that there are things to be done sufficient to use all our energies. The things to be done are, on the one hand, the abolition of the giant evils of Want, Disease, Ignorance and Squalor and, on the other hand, the raising of our output per head by extending and rejuvenating the capital needs of our industries. All this is set out in my Report and need not be repeated here.

Full Employment in a Free Society, as proposed in my second Report, though in due course if may, like social insurance be accepted by all parties, is in essence a radical plan, profoundly different from anything that would occur naturally to the Conservative or the Labour Parties. The Conservative attitude, at its best and most progressive, is represented by the Government’s White Paper on Employment Policy a paper which treats private enterprise as master in the economic field, and proposes public works to compensate for the instabilities of private work. The Labour Party is Socialist tied to the formula of nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange, desiring state enterprise for its own sake. The line of my second Report is a new line, of social demand rather than socialised production, of keeping private enterprise as servant not as master, of finding full employment for ourselves by planned raising of our standard of living. If you want a new line, you must rebuild a party that welcomes new ideas and knows how to put them into action.

‘A housing revolution’

Let me illustrate what I mean by winning full employment through raising the standard of living, by taking a practical problem of outstanding importance the problem of housing. The third of my three radical planks for tonight is a Housing Revolution.

For three reasons, once freedom from Want by Social Security is accomplished and out of the way, the provision of good housing for all people in Britain becomes the most urgent and important of all our post-war domestic problems.

One reason is that differences of housing represent the greatest inequality between different sections of the community to-day; improvement of housing affords, therefore, the greatest scope for raising the general standard of living. A second reason is that expenditure of our energies and our money on getting good housing is the most practical immediate contribution that we can make towards winning full employment, by the radical route of social demand. A third reason is that good housing is the indispensable foundation for health, efficiency and education. It is a waste of money to build hospitals to cure disease, if one is letting houses be built which breed disease. It is a waste of money to build schools for children who must return every night to squalid, crowded, unhealthy homes.

But good housing does not merely mean a well-built house: it means more than that in two ways.

First, good housing means a house of the right surroundings, within easy reach of work and of country air, in groups small and neighbourly enough to give a sense of community. That is a problem of Town and Country Planning and that, in turn, involves control over the location of industry and the organisation of transport to serve national rather than private ends.

Second, good housing means having the right equipment to reduce the hours of labour of housewives and save them from needless toil. In the past those who have had the most labour-saving homes have also had the service which they did not need. The experiences of the war ought to have taught all of us, even those who in the past have lived in the comfort of good houses with ample service, how vital it is to have labour-saving homes for those who have no service. That is likely to mean nearly all of us in future.

I have been one of those who have lived in a very beautiful house, as Master of my College. As it is a tied cottage which goes with my present job, my wife and I will have to leave it, when in a few months time I leave the job but that is another story. During the war we have sometimes had domestic service and sometimes not, but we have managed to survive, essentially because the College did so much to make the house itself labour-saving. We have a kitchen which fills even Americans with admiration with electric cookers, refrigerators, unlimited cupboards and sinks of the proper height. We have running water, central heating and electric fires, so that no water or coals ever need to be carried. We have an electric washer for clothes.

There is no reason in the world why every house in the country should not have all these things, and until every house in the country has all these things it will be absurd to tolerate unemployment. I should like every home to be as labour-saving as my home.

At the very least, there should be water laid on to every home. Liberalism with a Radical programme means not interfering with rights, but giving additional rights: I suggest that every housewife in this country shall have a right to a tap. Let this be one of the taproots of Liberalism.

At the very least also, there should be light and power laid on to every home and every farm. At present, so many comforts and amenities can be got only in cities. One of the guiding principles that we should lay down for the future is to give the people living in small towns and in the country the advantages which at present they can obtain only by crowding together in cities.

We want to disperse our population, not to concentrate it further in great cities. That requires a definite control over the location of industry; population must go where industry goes. It requires the organisation of transport in the national interest under a Public Utility Corporation. The location of industry depends in part on provision of transport and on freight policy: the comfort of country life depends upon adequate supply of transport for human beings and for goods.

An immense housing programme of good houses in the right places, with ample equipment is the first thing that we want for raising our standard of living.

The limit to what we can do here, the pace at which we can proceed, is set not by money but by our man-power. Our needs in housing are more than enough to use all our men and women who can be spared from other tasks for so long ahead as we need look to-day. This does not mean that the money cost of housing is unimportant. It is important that house-room and equipment should be cheap, so that consumers feel that they are getting full value for money there and spend their money on housing rather than on other less important things.

The simplest way to low rents is by cheap capital. The State, by use of its credit can, without difficulty, lower the rate of interest on all approved housing schemes to 2H per cent. or less if it chooses. The difference in rent of a £1,000 house between interest at 4H per cent. and interest at 2H per cent. is 8 shillings a week.

The way to cheapness of equipment is bulk buying. We do not want hundreds of different kinds of refrigerators or cookers, or electric washers, all needing different kinds of spares, so that repairs are difficult. If we design a few main kinds of each for these and get them made in hundreds of thousands and millions, we can get them incredibly cheaper, while paying good wages to those who make them. Mass-production reconciles the need of consumer for cheapness with the need of the producer for good wages.

Finally, it is essential to control building costs. No vested interest whether capital or of labour must be allowed to stand in the way of putting a good house and its equipment within the reach of every citizen of Britain.

It is important to bring good housing within the means of all people, but this cannot be done simply by increasing their money incomes. Good housing, like hospitals, schools and many other necessaries of civilised life cannot be secured by individuals for themselves. They must be won by collective planning and social demand the policy of my Report on Full Employment.

Liberal principles or a Liberal Party?

My third point, of a Revolution in Housing, no less than the other points of Social Security and Full Employment drives home the need for a Liberal Party. Of course, both Conservatives and Labour men will make housing one of the main planks in their programmes. They can see the obvious like the rest of us. But Conservatives will be hampered in this matter, by their reluctance to interfere either with private enterprise in the location of industry or with landowners; good housing is impossible without measures of town and country planning, for which the Conservative Party shows no sign of being prepared. And the Labour Party will be hampered, in this as in other fields, by its dependence on trade unions, representing the interests of particular sections of producers. Trade unions are rightly concerned to improve the conditions of those who work in factories and elsewhere for wages. They have tabled already a demand for immediate reduction of wage-earners’ hours of work. That reduction, I hope, will come in time, and I would like it soon rather than late, but it is not as important as reduction of the housewife’s hours of work by a revolution in housing. Abolition of squalor and overwork in the home should come before the giving of more leisure from the factory.

In the social development of the past there has been undue emphasis on the work and conditions of the factory. The time has come to give equal or greater attention to the conditions of the home. The Liberal Party has no hampering connections of privilege; while it presses for social justice and security for producers, it is above all the party of the citizens at large, as consumers. Its Radical Programme is a programme of putting first things first, bread and health for all before cake and circuses for anybody.

The remark is often made that, though there may be a revival of liberal principles, there is no room or need for a Liberal Party. The other parties can be trusted to put liberal principles into practice. So they can, after sufficient delay and in a suitably expurgated form, as shown by the National Insurance Plan of 1944. But why submit to delay and expurgation? If you want Liberalism at once and in full, if you want a New Britain free of the giant social evils of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness, free at the same time of every needless restriction on individual liberty, you can get these things best through a strong Liberal Party with a Radical Programme.

If you want a strong Liberal Party, you must do your part to get it into being. We must have both a programme and an organisation. The programme a Radical Programme is there. The organisation has to be rebuilt, in every locality, out of neglect and discouragement of the past. I hope that every one of you to-night will decide to take part in the great re-building of a great Liberal Party.

The period of Liberal decline between the two world wars was a bad time in the history of Britain and the world. Let us begin a new, better time by Liberal revival. In taking as our objective the making of a strong Liberal Party with a Radical Programme, we reconcile the good of the past with the new measures needed for the future. The ultimate aims of Liberalism are unchanged equal enjoyment of all essential liberties secured by the rule of law, material progress for the sake of increasing spiritual life, toleration for variety of opinion, the common interest of all citizens over-riding every sectional privilege at home, peace and goodwill and international trade abroad. These aims endure. To-day they must be pursued by new methods, by positive radical methods based on experience, suited to changed conditions. Liberalism is a faith, not a formula.