Political Commentary

For whom the tumbrils?

John Grigg

Resignation, as Frank Johnson was arguing recently in this column, is a mug's game for individual politicians. It seldom, if ever, pays for a minister to resign, and this fact is now increasingly recognised. But there are good grounds' for believing that what is true of individual ministers is also true of minis' tries. A government is unlikely to gain from appealing to the country on a single issue of principle, as the Heath government did in 1974. The more prudent course is to stay in office until it can fight an election on a broad front with reasonable prospects of success, or until its statutory term is nearly up.

The present Labour Government has been in office for less than half its statutory term, and in normal circumstances there would be no question of an election until, at earliest, the autumn of next year. But circumstances are obviously far from normal, The Government has no proper working majority in Parliament (despite the delay in moving a by-election writ for Ashfield, David Marquand's seat), and its most important measure this session—the Scotland and Wales Bill—is threatened with mutilation and obstruction by dissidents in its own ranks. But whatever happens to the Bill, or to the time-table (guillotine) which will soon have to be proposed for it, Mr Callaghan would surely be crazy to try to fight an election this year on the issue of devolution. And his worst enemies have never thought him a crazy man.

For one thing, the election would not be fought on devolution alone, even though the Government might hope to make that the central issue. Voters would judge Labour on its general performance, which does not— to put it mildly—look very impressive at the moment. Any chance of triumphant success for the Government's so-called 'strategy' depends upon time. For the next year or so Labour will be marching through the desert with the Promised Land still well over the skyline.

Moreover, devolution would not be a popular issue in England, unless it were broadened to include an attractive scheme of English regional government. At present most English voters are probably indifferent or hostile to the devolution schemes that are now being promoted exclusively for the benefit of Scotland and Wales. And although Labour cannot afford to antagonise the Scots and the Welsh, it can even less afford to antagonise the English.

If it should become apparent that the Scotland and Wales Bill will not go through, in anything like its present form, within a tolerable time-span, Mr Callaghan will not appeal to the country. He will try playing the same game—appeasing the Celtic fringe—

in a different way, and at the same time he may be able to improve his relations with the Liberals. This would have the advantage of strengthening him both against the Conservatives and against his own left wing.

David Steel is proving a skilful and canny leader of his party, and the last Gallup poll provided evidence of growing support for him in the country. As a rule the Liberals do not flourish when a Labour government is in trouble—only when a Conservative government is in trouble. But it now seems that the usual pattern may be ceasing to apply.

The Liberals, having long advocated devolution, naturally voted for the second reading of the Scotland and Wales Bill. But they object to many features of it, and in any case are keen to exploit the Government's predicament for the furthering of their own interests. Mr Steel has recently delivered an attack of somewhat gratuitous asperity upon Mrs Thatcher, which suggests that he expects more benefit to his party from dealings with the Government than with the Tories.

In a significant article published in last Monday's Times (7 February), he said that the Liberals would be using their bargaining power 'to get the Government to think again about the present muddle of expediency and gerrymandering that it dignified with the title of the Scotland and Wales Bill.' In particular, he implied that there would be no Liberal support for a guillotine on the Bill unless its financial provisions were changed so that the Scottish executive would have some power to tax; unless the Scottish and Welsh secretaries of state were 'declared redundant' ; and unless a system of PR (which was 'almost the sole unanimous recommendation of the Kilbrandon Royal Commission') were adopted for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies.

Failing such changes to the Bill, he suggested as an (anyway preferable) alternative the summoning of 'a constitutional convention of the interested parties to see whether agreement can be thrashed out on the fundamentals of a new constitutional order.' Mr Callaghan may look with some favour on this proposal, if and when he finds that the present devolution Bill is doomed.

He is anyway likely, at some stage, to refer the question of Scottish and Welsh representation at Westminster to a Speaker's conference. Michael Foot has been arguing strongly in Cabinet that the number of Westminster MPs from Scotland and Wales will have to be reduced when the new assemblies are in existence, and although he failed to persuade his colleagues that this Spectator 12 February 1977 principle should be conceded in the Bill, it is almost sure to be conceded through some other process.

A Speaker's conference, or constitutional convention, would at the same time be a suitable forum in which to raise the question of Ulster representation, and the Government could thus deny to the Conservatives whatever chance they might otherwise have —which seems slight enough—of restoring themselves to a state of grace with the Ulster Unionists. The memory of the imposition of direct rule and of Mr Whitelaw's meeting with the IRA, compounded by Enoch Powell's malevolence against the PartY which failed to make him its leader, have turned the Ulster MPs into more reliable allies of Labour than of the Conservatives. And Mr Callaghan has only to make a gesture to keep it that way. The Conservative Party is in no positic'n to extract advantage from a constitutional conference. On nearly every issue that might come up it is divided, and on several of the most important it has given itself even less roorri for manoeuvre than the Government. It should not be assumed, therefore, that the impending fate of the devolution Bill is necessarily good news for the Opposition. If Mr Callaghan had no other reason for wanting plenty of time before going to the country, the ultra-left menace within lus party would suffice. He knows that the present majority on the NEC would ensure an election-losing manifesto for Labour, and he can also see that the party's youth movement, now under direct Trotskyist control, is itself enough to alienate hundreds of thousands of voters.

The resolutions for this year's you Socialists' conference—go be held at Black" pool from the 9th to the 11th of April—are now being circulated, together with two documents for the edification of delegates' These are The Ideals of October: 60 Years after the Russian Revolution of October,/ 1917, and Fight for the Socialist Alternative', The first of these is a Trotskyist version odt modern Russian history, the see°11 demands 'decree powers . . . to abolish the Monarchy and the House of Lords and to vest the Government with powers to nationalise the 200 or so big firms, banks and y insurance progress.' Ofwhich stand in the f thoseHeifer invited is th teo amdodsrte s rs the t _cwo innfeg

Eric

Young Socialists are clearly determined t!). see to it that, for Mr Callaghan, April will indeed be the cruellest month. But fortunately the party's moderates are now at lash mobilising themselves for battle, war; William Rogers, veteran of the / 96°.A Campaign for Democratic Socialism—an' now Transport Minister—as their leader.; The urgent task of this new movement w,l1; e chee, be to induce the great majority of socJa; democrats in the trade unions and 1.0°3.. Labour parties to attend their branch rneeL_ ings and to stay until the end, whatever thtc personal inconvenience. The price of llber Y is, alas, eternal boredom.