LONDON UNDER SOCIALISM II
By W. H. WEBBE
[Alderman Webbe is leader of the Municipal Reform Party on the London County Council. An article on the same subject by Mr. Herbert Morrison, M.P., leader of the Labour Party on the L.C.C., appeared in last week's SrEcreroa.] THE subject of this article, "London Under Socialism," was suggested by the editor of The Spectator, and, as Leader of the Municipal Reform Party on the London County Council, I am pleased to have the opportunity of dealing with it. I wish to make it clear, however, that it is due to the editorial selection of the theme that the article contains no general exposition of the constructive policy of my own Party.
Before examining the Socialist record I may be permitted to interpose an expression of the pride we all feel in the historic city we are privileged to serve. Without difference of party, the London County Council is jealous of the reputation of what our opponents rightly described in their 1934 election manifesto as " the greatest municipality in the world." On the occasion of the Silver Jubilee of King George V the Council published a handbook—London, 1910-1935—giving a graphic account of how the municipal services of London had been built up to an unequalled standard of • utility and efficiency during the 25 years of the King's reign. That there was no complacency in this record of achievement was shown by the fact that it was published with the authority of the first London County Council on which there was a Socialist majority and related to a period almost entirely under Municipal Reform administration.
Within the last few days the London Labour Party has issued its manifesto for the present election, and in so far as this deals with the past it constitutes the Socialist story of " London Under Socialism." The most curious feature of this story is the disingenuous way in which it places to the credit of the London Labour Party various measures initiated by the National Govern- ment and entrusted to the administration of the local authorities throughout the country. In support of the cry, " Labour gets things done ! " we are told how milk has been provided for school children, slum clearance pushed ahead, overcrowding taken in hand, and lastly how preparations are being made for the raising of the school age and the establishment of a new midwifery service as a means of reducing the maternal mortality rate.
Now this is in no sense a record of what Socialism, as a planning and constructive force, has done for London of its own volition. It is not a policy inspired by the London Labour Party. On the contrary, it is a social reform policy, originating, item by item, with the National Government, and handed to the appropriate local authorities, including the London County Council, to be put into operation on prescribed lines. That is the answer to by far the major portion of the claims advanced in support of the contention that " Labour gets things done ! " One might go further and say that, on the record of London during the past three years the truth is that " Labour gets things done for it by the National Government."
A better test of whether Labour gets things done is provided by those services where development has depended on the unstimulated action of the Socialists themselves. Here they have shown themselyes to be feeble to the point of inertness, even where their per- sistent promises led one to expect that they might show considerable vigour. During the 1934 election campaign no specific proposals were advocated more widely by the Socialist candidates than open-air schools and nursery schools. These were favourite topics alike in speeches and election addresses. Yet after three years we find that not a single new nursery school has been opened, and that, on the records to November last, no new sites have been obtained for open-air schools. Left to themselves in these matters, the Socialists on the London County Council have done nothing.
There is a similar story to be told in regard to hospital accommodation. While the Socialists were in opposition, in 1933, they demanded the building of two new hoS- pitals. After being in office almost three years they have not started to build even one hospital, though, with the Election in the offing, they authorised a new hospital at the last meeting of the Council in December. Broadly speaking, the Socialists have been content to follow the Municipal Reform policy of raising the standard of hospital accommodation, but they have failed to provide the necessary replacement accommoda- tion, much less take steps to provide for the increasing demand for treatment in L.C.C. hospitals. The upshot of this mishandling of the hospital problem is that under Socialist control the number of beds in L.C.C. hospitals has fallen by 1,600, with the result that today we are faced with the prospect of serious overcrowding in the majority of the hospitals. Here again the Socialists have failed, when they had not the National Government prodding them into positive action.
Even in the matter of slum clearance, with all the drive of the National Government campaign as a stimulus, the Socialists have fallen short in their per- formance. In the matter of slum clearance, the zero year is 1988—the year in which the National Govern- ment launched its great campaign to sweep away the slums, and called upon the local authorities to prepare their schemes. Since that date the average number of slum dwellers rehoused each year, taking the country as a whole, has been increased nine times as compared with the period from 1980, when the Labour Govern- ment passed the Slum Clearance Act, to 1983. In London, under Socialist rule, the increase on a similar basis of comparison has only been fourfold, compared with a national increase of ninefold. The failure is emphasised when it is found that the Socialist L.C.C. has not built as many houses in proportion to popula- tion as the Conservative Councils in other great cities, such as Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.
As this question of re-housing is of especial importance, as evidence of the Socialist lack of effective drive, it may ftirther be pointed out that under Socialist control the average number of slum dwellers re-housed has been little over 10,000 a year. Under the scheme prepared by the Municipal Reform Party in 1988, the rehousing programme provided for 250,000 in ten years, an average of 25,000 a year. Subsequently the Socialists talked airily of rehousing 100,000 in three years, or over 33,000 a year. In actual fact they have provided for only 31,000 people during the three years they have been in office.
Finally there is the urgent problem of improved traffic facilities. Here we again find a notable lack of a broad, constructive policy. Waterloo Bridge has been pulled down. This may have been very impressive as a gesture, but as a traffic measure it creates more difficulties than it solves. Waterloo Bridge is a road across a river, and to widen it without satisfactory plans for dealing with the increased traffic at both ends of the bridge—and particularly at the Strand exit—is only to make confusion worse confounded. The Socialists, perhaps because pulling down is their strong point, have shown no apprecia- tion of this aspect of the problem. Neither have they attempted to promote any new schemes, on a large scale, for improving the main traffic arteries leading in and out of London. As for Wandsworth and Chelsea Bridges, which are now being rebuilt, these schemes were taken over, at an advanced stage, from the Municipal Reformers. They are merely part of the " carry on " work from one Council to another.
In the light of such a practical analysis, the Socialist record, I submit, is one that reveals a deplorable lack of initiative, direction and drive. The things it has done are primarily the things brought into operation by the National Government. The things it has left undone are its own sins of omission. This is the more reprehensible when it is remembered that from 1934 onwards the Local Authorities of this country have had all the advantages of the recovery following on the work of the National Government—cheap money for capital expenditure, improving trade and every encouragement from Whitehall to embark on new projects. By com- parison the Municipal Reform Party in its last period of office was crippled by the urgent need for economy. The Socialists have had an excellent wicket, and the fact that they have made such poor use of it is proof of their weakness as a team.
Previous page
