Compulsion and Consensus

POLITICAL COMMENTARY

By ALAN WATKINS

It does not require very much lobbying or leg-work to discover Conservatives who now wish that Lord Butler had never left the Com- mons in the first place. At least they would be happier if the Opposition front bench contained one figure who even began to fulfil his function. For what Lord Butler possessed was the capacity to sit back and think; and it is this capacity which is currently lacking in the Opposition.

On the face of it, perhaps, it does not seem a very remarkable capacity to demand. To sit back, to do nothing, to bide one's time, to think one's thoughts, very occasionally to intervene— what could be more pleasant and agreeable than that? But it is not a way of life, or of opposition, that appeals to Mr Edward Heath or, it seems, to any other member of his front bench. Mr Reginald Maudling, it is true, is a potential ex- ception. He could yet fill a Butler-like role : so far he has not chosen to do so. The situation might also be different if Mr Christopher Soames were back in the Commons. Mr Heath, however, is temperamentally disinclined to watching and listening and waiting.

And this is not only a matter of Mr Heath's active temperament. In addition, he now appears to feel the constant need to prove himself. During the Prime Minister's question time on Tuesday, for instance, he twice intervened on matters of complete triviality, merely, one sup- poses, in order to show that he was still capable of standing up to Mr Harold Wilson. There used to be a maxim, familiar to aircraftmen (it may, for all I know, have been familiar to other ranks, too), which went something like this : if it moves, salute it; if it doesn't move, polish it. The Oppo- sition seems to be proceeding on much the same lines : if the Government does something, oppose it; if it does nothing, denounce it; when in doubt, call it Socialism.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home, for example, says that 'now is the time for Conservatives to in- scribe in bold letters, for all to see, the rights of the individual for which we mean to fight. . . . These rights are now seen to be under threat from Socialism and it is the privilege and duty of Conservatives to mobilise the electors to protect these values which are the foundation of a free society.' Or take, again, Mr Peter Walker, issuing his weekly statements from Worcester about the red:headed peril, Mrs Barbara Castle; or take his colleague, Mr T. G. D. Galbraith, talking in the House about the Road Safety Bill as if it were the greatest menace to freedom since the Court of Star Chamber; or take Mr Eldon Griffiths, who appears to believe that all our liberties have already been extirpated. Am I, I wonder, alone in finding all these recent speeches, with their repeated contrast be- tween Conservative 'freedom' and Labour 'com- pulsion,' rather less than wholly convincing? Certainly there is no ground for thinking that the slogan 'freedom not compulsion' expresses any real philosophical difference between the parties at the present time. Nor does it seem very likely that the slogan will prove nearly so effective electorally as 'set the people free' was during the time of the Attlee government. After all, people had ration books in those days.

The difficulty is surely this: following the Blackpool conference, the Conservative party has taken to pretending that it is operating outside the consensus. Indeed, it has gone further: it makes out that there is no consensus at all, that this Government is in some mysterious sense (equally unknown to Karl Marx or Mr Anthony Crosland) a 'Socialist' government. 'I only wish they were,' observed one Labour MP this week.

'What have they changed? They've changed the postage stamps.' In other words, the picture of current politics which Mr Heath and his col- leagues are presenting to the country is essen- tially a misleading one, and they must know it is misleading, though they may believe that it may yet come true. They are presenting it pri- marily in order to keep their active supporters on the back-benches and in the country happy.

But there must be considerable doubt as to whether the game will turn out to be worth the price with the public at large. 'Vigorous oppo- sition,' claim the Conservative posters. Even if the claim were true, which it is not, there is the question whether the voters want their Oppo- sition to be vigorous.

Now if the Conservative party really were a party operating outside the consensus—if, say, its leader were Mr Enoch Powell and (what does not necessarily follow) its doctrines were Powellite—there might be some case for claim- ing at every opportunity: 'Look, we are different.' I say there might be some case. In fact, I believe, regretfully, that the mood of the country is opposed to sharp political conflict, and that a Powellite Conservative party would not make much electoral headway.

But in these circumstances the party would at least be behaving in a manner that was true to itself. In the present circumstances, on the other hand, the party is pretending to be some- thing it is not : that is to say, a party funda- mentally opposed to the policies of the present Government. Not only does Mr Heath fail to carry complete conviction in his rOle—for Mr Heath, when all is said and done, is basically a consensus man. More, the rOle, however con- vincingly played, would remain unpopular with the voters at large. It is bad enough, in the public's eyes, to keep putting down motions of censure. It becomes even worse when those motions of censure blow up in one's face.

The recommendation that the Conservative party should, at least for the next two years, settle for a quiet life is, I realise, a faintly de- pressing one, at least for those Conservatives (and there are still quite a few of them around) who like a good fight. Moreover, it is arguable that by behaving as at present, the Opposition is doing a service to freedom, though not to its own electoral prospects. Obviously the reality of British politics—the fact that the opposing party leaderships fundamentally agree with each other, and that the public is content to put its trust in the Government of the day—presents grave threats to minorities. Indeed, it presents grave threats to majorities, if those majorities' views are not represented by the party leader- ships.

A partial solution would be for the critical functions that used to be exercised by the Oppo- sition to be taken over by back-benchers of either side. In practice, of course, the Government back-benchers would play the more important part, because they are in the most advantageous position to influence events. In the past the case for greater back-bench freedom has been founded on the increasing power of the execu- tive. While not dissenting from this, one could also argue that greater back-bench freedom is necessary because of the increasing weight of orthodox political opinion—because, if you like, of the consensus.

In this context it is difficult to overestimate the magnitude of the recent concession made by Mr Richard Crossman and Mr John Silk in. Mr Crossman and Mr Min promised to allow abstentions on any questions of sincere conscien- tious conviction, not merely on questions of sex and drink and hanging. In return, they demanded the ending of 'unofficial groups.' With the greatest respect to Mr Michael Foot and his friends, and Mr Christopher Mayhew and his friends, it is difficult not to feel that they behaved somewhat gracelessly in the face of such a hand- some offer. What, after all, is an unofficial group? Surely two or three or even more may gather together for a quiet drink without minatory messages being flashed from Mr Silkin. In fact, the left have agreed to Mr Silkin's presence at their Monday meeting. But the right to abstain on, it appears in practice, absolutely anything under the sun or on the order paper . . . that is something .different, something definite, a prize worth having.

Certainly the two motions on Rhodesia put down this week provide an instructive illustra- tion of what might happen. At the end of last week and the beginning of this one, rumours went round the lobby to the effect that the Government was preparing an early sell-out on Rhodesia. Later in the week, these rumours were proved false : or rather, while Mr Wilson was ,perfectly prepared for a sell-out, or something so nearly resembling one as to be indistinguish- able, Mr Ian Smith was not playing. Be this as it may, the signatures on the order paper were impressive. If they were transformed into absten- tions in a division, they would be more im- pressive still. Or take, again, the Common Market question. Most of the Cabinet, as I pointed out some weeks ago, is now in favour of entry, though Mrs Barbara Castle is reliably reported to have said nothing, which must be some sort of record. As Mr Claud Cockburn put it in his immortal Times headline : 'Ominous Silence from Bulgaria.' However, there will still be dis- sentients on the back-benches; and these dissen- tients will now be able lawfully to express themselves by .abstaining.

Yet in the last resort, greater freedom for back-benchers does not solve the problem of consensus politics. This problem can be stated as follows : how, when the public is bored with party politics, and the Government, or at least the Prime Minister, capitalises on this boredom, is Any real political debate to be carried on? It is a question to which, as yet, no satisfactory answer has been found.