My Life

My Life - Oswald Mosleynational life. Since 1948 I have defined the objective as entry into a completely unitedEurope, and have proposed long-term measures of reconstruction to achieve andfollow that entry. I have also suggested short-term measures, if necessary as strenuousas a wartime or siege economy.No one would be so foolish as to suggest a wartime or siege economy for a permanentbasis of British life—it can and should only be the short-term means to the long-termend—or to propose difficult measures if an easier way is available. My contention isthat we should have contingency planning for a wartime economy, if all else fails.Even this, of course, will be resisted to the last by those who, over the years, haveconsistently underrated the seriousness of Britain's position, and have failed to meetany situation in time. Yet the British people would certainly respond to the appeal fora wartime basis of life for a short period in order to achieve great and clearly definedobjectives. It should be explained that by this means we could not only live, but couldwin the position in the world we desire. What, for the time being, we refrained fromconsuming at home, could if necessary be dumped on world markets with disastrouseffects to other economies. We could in the last extremity make ourselves such anuisance that our reasonable proposals would before long be accepted. We could playthe rogue elephant better than most, for the purpose of cleaning up the jungle. Wehave immense means in our scientists, our technicians, our skilled workers and ourproductive capacity. All is possible to Britain if the will of our people can beawakened by a government determined to act. The wind and water would be squeezedout of our economy in the process, and subsequent relaxation after this supreme effortcould establish a more rational basis of national life.If you take the steady view—as I now do more than ever—that much more needs tobe done, the first essential is the means to do it. I believe the measures I previouslysuggested for the reform of parliamentary procedure and of the machinery ofgovernment are still the best to secure the necessary action by the democratic processin which I believed then and believe now. We shall see later that my deviation in theinterval was not so considerable as is sometimes suggested, for throughout I havestood for the principle of regular and free elections to decide and control the life of thegovernment.There is now much loose talk of 'business government' without any clear definition ofwhat this terms means. I gave a definition in a speech during the thirties: 'The properrelationship of government to Parliament is that of company directors toshareholders— the shareholders should decide broad policy and then give thedirectors complete freedom to carry it out'. If 'business government' means anythingclear and practical, it means government given the power to act by the people'srepresentatives in Parliament, in the same way as a board of directors is given thatpower by the shareholders, subject to their right to interrogate and if necessarydismiss the directors at a shareholders' meeting. This makes sense, it is precisely whatI proposed to the Select Committee in 1931, and propose again today. I suggested thatgovernment should have the power to act by order, subject to the right of Parliamentto dismiss it by a vote of censure. I would now add that M.P.s should have the rightregularly and systematically, though not continually, to interrogate Ministers.This makes a practical proposition of the term 'business government', which as avague phrase is no aid to clear thinking. Otherwise, business government can only221 of 424