Politically, economically and philosophically the motive of self-interest not only is but must...and ought to be the mainspring of human conduct...Fo… - F. E. Smith, 1st Earl of Birkenhead

Nobody disputed that in the year 1914 it was evident to everyone that the country would have to struggle for its life. Knowing that, Mr. MacDonald stated that the war had been deliberately engineered by the fighting forces of this country in order to obtain battle-practice for our fleet. ... The people of this country had now the chance of deciding whether they wished to see this ancient country presided over and governed by a man who, had he had his way, would have ruined and destroyed us in the war; and he knew what their answer was going to be. They were going to say to him, “Dress yourself in your red flag or your yellow flag; go and attend your board meetings in the McVitie Company. We do not believe you for this reason—that every speech you make contains some piece of shifty, tricky inventiveness which we have never been used to from the Prime Minister of England.”

Disraeli, in his youth, laid down the principles on which the England of his time ought to have been based, and his comparative failure to convince his contemporaries or to overbear his philosophic opponents left his country the richer by a supreme instance of political genius and the poorer by its slums, its wasted physique, and its industrial unrest and class hatred. If a Providence could have made Disraeli a dictator in the early 'thirties, there would have been no social problem to-day. That great man desired to build up the new industrial State on the principles and practice which had animated the older rural and urban dispensations—on the community of interest between master and man, between capitalist and employee, between guild and guild, between agricultural labourer and town workman. What was best in the feudal conception of the past was to be applied to the new progressive forces of the nineteenth century, and the aristocracy of industry was to follow in the tradition of the aristocracy of feudalism and make itself the guardian, and not the exploiter, of its new retainers.

We are asked to permit a hundred men to go round to the house of a man who wishes to exercise the common law right in this country to sell his labour where and when he chooses, and to 'advise' him or 'peacefully persuade' him not to work. If peaceful persuasion is the real object, why are a hundred men required to do it? … Every honest man knows why trade unions insist on the right to a strong numerical picket. It is because they rely for their objects neither on peacefulness nor persuasion. Those whom they picket cannot be peacefully persuaded. They understand with great precision their own objects, and their own interests, and they are not in the least likely to be persuaded by the representatives of trade unions, with different objects and different interests. But, though arguments may never persuade them, numbers may easily intimidate them. And it is just because argument has failed, and intimidation has succeeded, that the Labour Party insists upon its right to picket unlimited in respect of numbers.