Being a politics student gives you the time, opportunity and in many cases the compulsion to read things one might not ordinarily read in day to day life. It was for these reasons that I found myself last week reading a wide variety of speeches and letters from Stanley Baldwin (Conservative PM in the 20s and 30s). Whatever you think of his politics I think you would struggle not to enjoy reading what he has to say. There is a simple and straightforward tone in his words that makes me think you would still (infuriatingly) like him even if you disagreed with everything he said.
I would love to reproduce so many of his speeches and letters but I will restrict myself to just one. It is not even one of his best written pieces but it does raise some of the most interesting questions today. It is a letter published anonymously in the Times in June 1919.
Sir,
It is now a truism to say that in August, 1914, the nation was face to face with the greatest crisis in her history. She was saved by the freewill offerings of her people. The best of her men rushed to the colours; the best of her women left their homes to spend and be spent; the best of her older men worked as they had never worked before, to a common end, and with a sense of unity and fellowship as new as it was exhilarating. It may be that in four and a half years the ideals of many became dim, but the spiritual impetus of those early days carried the country through to the end.
Today, on the eve of peace, we are faced with another crisis, less obvious, but none the less searching. The whole country is exhausted. By a natural reaction, not unlike that which led to the excesses of the Restoration after the reign of the Puritans, all classes are in danger of being submerged by a wave of extravagance and materialism. It is so easy to live on borrowed money; so difficult to realise you are doing so.
It is easy to play; so hard to learn that you cannot play for long without work. A fool's paradise is only the ante-room to a fools hell.
How can the nation be made to understand the gravity of the financial situation; that love of country is better than love of money?
This can only be done by example, and the wealthy classes have today an opportunity of service which can never recur.
They know the danger of the present debt; they know the weight of it in years to come. They know the practical difficulties of a universal statutory capital levy. Let them impose upon themselves, each as he is able a voluntary levy. It should be possible to pay to the Exchequer within twelve months such a sum as would save the taxpayer 50 millions a year.
I have been considering this matter for nearly two years but my mind moves slowly; I dislike the publicity, and I hoped that someone else might lead the way. I have made as accurate an estimate as I am able of the value of my own estate, and have arrived at a total of about £580,000. I have decided to realise 20 per cent of that amount or, say, £120,000 which will purchase £150,000 of the new War Loan, and present it to the Government for cancellation.
I give this portion of my estate as a thank-offering in the firm conviction that never again shall we have such a chance of giving our country that form of help which is so vital at the present time
Yours, etc.,
F.S.T. (Later revealed to stand for Financial Secretary of the Treasury rather than someone's initials as was presumed at the time)
I do not necessarily approve of the redistributive tones in the letter but the voluntary nature of it soothes these concerns. Still what does interest me are comparisons with the present day. As far as I know there has been nothing along these lines in the last few months or years. It seems particularly hard to imagine any of the cabinet or indeed any MP making such a sacrifice. It is difficult enough to get them to pay back the money they cheated out of the expenses system let alone any more of their own personal wealth.
Some would suggest that Baldwin was simply a better class of politician, the sort we will never have in this country again. There might be some truth in that but I think the real reason has to be that it just doesn't seem worth it. I'm not suggesting that any government in the modern era could spend our money in a manner as justifiable as WW1 but the fact is that this government has spent so much of our money and achieved so little.
Our personal freedoms have been curtailed to near soviet levels and taking your kids to the swings now requires more paperwork than attempting an assault on Everest's eastern face. Our soldiers are dying in distant lands while our Prime Minister sits at home with no clear idea of why they are there, what they need to do it or even what biscuit to dunk as he reads of the latest fatalities. Despite the twisted figures they wave at us it is obvious to anyone who isn't directly affiliated to Labour that over 12 years the NHS is in no better shape, crime is higher, education is falling behind virtually all other western countries, the economy is in the worst shape it has ever been and unemployment is at disgraceful levels.
The point I'm trying to make is that there may well be some people, or even politicians, who love their country as Stanley Baldwin did. Who would be prepared to sacrifice some of their personal wealth for it's sake. But it's not like that anymore. More than half what they paid would be used just to pay off the interest. The rest would be squandered just like the billions that already has been.
Stanley Baldwin saw a chance to help his nation. To pay off the war debt and return Britain to it's feet. It cost him dear. The recession of the next decade is estimated to have left him with less than he gave in those early days.
New Labour were never called upon to spend our money on such an important cause. Thankfully no such war war has broken out for more than 60 years and hopefully it never will. So I am not suggesting they should have acted so strongly to preserve our sovereignty. What I am suggesting is that they should have left our money alone not give away our sovereignty in droves and expect us to foot the bill. Not destroy every institution and characteristic that makes people proud to be British and then tell us what a success they have made of our country. Not plunge us into the longest recession we have ever suffered and then tell us it was a global catastrophe that had nothing to do with their reckless and wasteful borrowing.
It is an arrogance Mr Baldwin would have detested. I can only hope that his party, over 90 years after his donation can do something to change this situation. They need not spend their own money but they should spend ours in a reasonable and proffesional manner. On things we want not they want. Most importantly though, they should do what they can to bring back the country Stanley Baldwin was once so proud of.
I've speculated before that the Lib Dem policy agenda is linked to the stars. Last time, the morning after the longest solar eclipse of the century Nick Clegg announced he was dropping a lot of key policy pledges including the scrapping of tuition fees. Before that Uranus reached it's closest point to earth and sure enough the next day they U-turned on entering the Euro. Back in 2007 they changed their minds on an EU referendum less than 24 hours after another solar eclipse.
