Dominic Lawson, son of Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote awhile back that “the public want honesty, but not when it comes to their taxes.” Voters, Lawson argued, will never undo the government entitlements that are bankrupting modern democracies. It is ludicrous, he adds, for British Conservatives to deplore the national debt, and then “to propose measures which would do nothing to reduce it, but actually increase it. It’s as if Churchill had declared, ‘I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, sweat and tax cuts.’”

This would seem an evergreen subject, especially when Mr. Lawson ventured into history: “Indeed, it is an enduring myth that even as Prime Minister during the war itself, Churchill’s offer of “nothing but blood, toil, tears and sweat” was invariably welcome to the British voters. As Angus Calder pointed out in his iconoclastic book The People’s War, strikes were common, the government not especially popular, and Churchill himself an object of much public disparagement—even if that didn’t find expression in the columns of the newspapers.” This was why Churchill received “an overwhelming raspberry” from voters in the July 1945 election.

How popular was Churchill, really?

The last is an oversimplification. Churchill polled well throughout the war and was well thought of individually. The voters didn’t turn Churchill out in 1945. They turned out the Conservatives, and with considerable justification. Many actually thought they could vote Labour and retain Churchill as Prime Minister.

Mr. Lawson was not wrong about British attitudes when Churchill first spoke as Prime Minister on 13 May 1940. In 1988, Alistair Cooke spoke of growing up in Britain after World War I, constantly reminded of a lost generation: “The British people would do anything to stop Hitler—except fight him.” Applause in the House of Commons on was then still louder for Chamberlain than for Churchill.

But Churchill’s speeches quickly turned attitudes around. By June, after the French debacle and Dunkirk, there was a different mood. Churchill’s postwar bodyguard, Ronald Golding, then an RAF Squadron Leader, recalled: “After his ‘fight on the beaches’ speech [4 June 1940], we wanted the Germans to come.”

Did WSC favor return to property qualification for voters?

Lawson rather misrepresented Churchill’s proposals for franchise reform when he wrote:

Churchill, admittedly, had never been completely persuaded of the benefits of the universal franchise. In 1930 he had published an essay—”Parliamentary Government and the Economic Problem”—which advocated its abandonment and a return to a property franchise (combined with proportional representation). I imagine that [today] Churchill would argue that it is next to impossible to persuade a majority of the need for sharp public expenditure cuts, when millions of households would feel that such a policy would cost them more in benefits than they would ever get back by way of a reduction in taxes.

Churchill frequently floated “trial balloons,” thinking out loud about the nature of democracy. He did a “bonus vote” for what he vaguely defined as the “more responsible” level of citizens. But he never led a movement or tabled a bill for such a reform. Nor in “Parliamentary Government and the Economic Problem” (reprinted in Thoughts and Adventures), did Churchill advocate “abandonment” of the universal vote or a “return to a property franchise.”

What he did suggest was as follows. (Remember, this was in the midst of the Depression)…

…an Economic sub-Parliament debating day after day with fearless detachment from public opinion all the most disputed questions of Finance and Trade, and reaching conclusions by voting, would be an innovation, but an innovation easily to be embraced by our flexible constitutional system. I see no reason why the political Parliament should not choose, in proportion to its party groupings, a subordinate Economic Parliament of, say, one-fifth of its numbers and composed of persons of high technical and business qualifications.[1]

A government representative of voters

Crucially, Churchill saw such a “sub-Parliament” as representative of the electorate. Today, we see much less democratic forms in the regulatory agencies or individuals (“Czars” in current American political parlance). These are unelected, yet they possess legislative power. Churchill would have been opposed to these. He never favored the “abandonment of Parliamentary Government.” Indeed quite the opposite, as he wrote in 1930:

I see the [Parliament] a living and ruling entity; the swift vehicle of public opinion; the arena—perhaps fortunately the padded arena—of the inevitable class and social conflict; the College from which the Ministers of State are chosen, and hitherto the solid and unfailing foundation of the executive power. I regard these parliamentary institutions as precious to us almost beyond compare. They seem to give by far the closest association yet achieved between the life of the people and the action of the State. They possess apparently an unlimited capacity of adaptiveness…an effective buffer against every form of revolutionary or reactionary violence. It should be the duty of faithful subjects to preserve these institutions in their healthy vigour, to guard them against the encroachment of external forces, and to revivify them from one generation to another from the springs of national talent, interest, and esteem.[2]

Endnotes

1. Winston S. Churchill, Thoughts and Adventures, James W. Muller, ed. (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2009), 255.

2. Ibid., 246-47.

Further reading

“In Defense of Churchill: A Life Devoted to Constitutional Liberty,” 2021

Update for 2019

Assault and battery…

* * *

* * *

Nearly forty years ago an equally great Churchill performance, Robert Hardy in The Wilderness Years,  was received with equal acclaim by press and public. Most importantly, there was no chorus of hate, no trumped-up charges, no hint that Churchill’s overall record was in anything except positive. Alas times have changed.

Accurate, But Not Dispositive

Mr. Dowden’s article seems to me broadly accurate, but not dispositive.

It is true that Britain dropped its opposition to making South Africa a “white man’s country” in 1909 by passing the Union of South Africa Act. Winston Churchill supported that Act because he saw it as the way to ease lingering tensions with the Boers. He justified his support by saying explicitly that it was the best possible solution, but he did not like it.

Churchill was a political man. He needed, and thought he needed, the votes of a majority. If he lived in an age of prejudice (and every age is that) then of course he would be careful how he offended those prejudices. See “Churchill and Racism.”

Apartheid and Smuts

It is quite true that Smuts believed in a “white man’s country” and in segregation in his earlier years. But the article doesn’t mention that when the pro-Apartheid National Party won the 1948 election, it defeated Smuts, who had run in support of the Fagin Commission, which had recommended relaxing segregation.

Early on, Churchill and Smuts expressed very unfashionable attitudes toward races their societies generally considered inferior. In 1899, Churchill tells his Boer captors that blacks are entitled to the same rights as any others in the British Empire.* In 1939, Smuts writes an essay for a commemorative book on Gandhi’s 70th birthday. Although Churchill and Smuts were Gandhi adversaries at times, they had a mutual respect and even admiration for each other. See “Welcome, Mr. Gandhi.”

*Pretoria, 1899

Churchill’s Boer captor: “No, no, old chappie, we don’t want your flag; we want to be left alone. We are free, you are not free.”

Churchill: “How do you mean ‘not free’?”

Boer: “Well, is it right that a dirty Kaffir should walk on the pavement [sidewalk]—without a pass too? That’s what they do in your British Colonies. Brother! Equal! Ugh! Free! Not a bit. We know how to treat Kaffirs….We know how to treat Kaffirs in this country. Fancy letting the black filth walk on the pavement!….Educate a Kaffir! Ah, that’s you English all over. No, no, old chappie. We educate ’em with a stick. Treat ’em with humanity and consideration—I like that. They were put here by the God Almighty to work for us. We’ll stand no damned nonsense from them. We’ll keep them in their proper places.”

Churchill: “Probing at random I had touched a very sensitive nerve. What is the true and original root of Dutch aversion to British rule?… British government is associated in the Boer farmer’s mind with violent social revolution…. The dominant race is to be deprived of their superiority; nor is a tigress robbed of her cubs more furious than is the Boer at this prospect.”

—From Winston S. Churchill, London to Ladysmith via Pretoria (1900), 59-60.