The Irreversible State

October 12, 1964

LONDON—Whatever the outcome of its current election, Britain will continue to be at least a semi-socialist state. In the event of a Labor victory, this is of course beyond dispute. The Labor Party’s manifesto insists on the panacea of “socialist planning.” It is openly contemptuous of the free market: “At the root of Tory failure lies an outdated philosophy—their nostalgic belief that it is possible in the second half of the twentieth century to hark back to a nineteenth-century free-enterprise economy and a nineteenth-century unplanned society. . . . The role of government must inevitably increase.”

The Labor manifesto goes on to explain how the party will plan practically every aspect of everybody’s economic life. The national economic plan will decide how much each industry will be expected to produce, export, and invest and how many men it will be expected to employ. The government will “establish new industries. “Private monopoly in steel will be replaced by public ownership and control.” A “national incomes policy” will decide who gets how much. All the social services—education, public housing, health care, old-age pensions—will be increased. Rents will be recontrolled. Interest rates for housing will be lowered. Labor will increase the building of new houses. Unemployment benefits will be upped.

SUBSIDIZED LEISURE

There is one concession to personal freedom: “It is not the job of the government to tell people how leisure should be used.” But lest this sound too permissive, the manifesto insists that “the government has a duty to ensure that leisure facilities are provided.” It will “give much more generous support to the Arts Council, the theatre, orchestras, concert halls, museums, and art galleries.” It will even “encourage and support independent filmmakers both for the cinema and television.”

Those Britons who would like a somewhat less paternalistic state get little comfort from the Liberals. The Liberal Party manifesto insists that “economic growth must become a major aim.” To give that aim “top priority” a “Ministry of Expansion” must be set up. While both Laborites and Conservatives seem to agree that a 4 percent annual rate of growth would be the right target, the Liberals “would weigh up the implications and decide on a 4, 5, or 6 percent rate of growth.” The Liberals too would have an “incomes policy,” which would “make allowances for groups that would have been left behind.” They would “set up Meat and Grain Commissions to manage the market for both home and imported produce,” boost the existing government building program “to at least 500,000 homes a year,” and increase social-security payments.

LIP SERVICE

When one turns to the Conservative manifesto, one gets at least lip service, and sometimes even eloquent lip service, to the free market. “Competition and free choice are the customers’ most effective safeguards.” “Conservatives believe,” says Sir Alec Douglas-Home, “that a centralized system of direction cramps the style of the British people. Only by trusting the individual with freedom and responsibility shall we gain the vitality to keep our country great.” Ringing words. But how seriously do the Conservatives take them? True, they declare themselves “utterly opposed to any extension of nationalization, whether outright or piecemeal. We propose to complete the denationalization of steel.” But there they stop. They do not propose to denationalize the railroads, or coal, or other industries under public ownership. They long ago lost their nerve on complete repeal of rent control. Now they make the positive pledge: “In the next Parliament we shall take no further steps to remove rent control.” They too will boost unemployment benefits and old-age pensions. They too will have “an effective and fair incomes policy.” They too will “give first priority to our policy of economic growth” of 4 percent a year. They too have now embraced government economic planning.

Does the welfare state, once embarked upon, set up such powerful vested interests for its own preservation that it passes a point of no return? Does it become irreversible?