BOOKS Harold Wilson's lost battle

WOODROW WYATT

Mr Peter Jenkins has written a rattling good novel in The Battle of Downing Street (Charles Knight 42s or 15s in paperback). All the better for having a substratum of fact.

But there is a danger in this kind of bang- bang dramatisation littered with dialogue in quotes tied to the principal real life char- acters (as in Sir Walter Scott, Jean Plaidy and other popular historical novelists). It is that the more readable the book, the less likely it is to be true. And this book is very readable.

`Typical was the manner in which he [Wilson] decided Britain should join the Common Market. It was a conversion as sudden and blinding as St Paul's. During a train journey to Wigan in the autumn of

1966 he looked up from the Economist in

which he had been reading an article by Francois Duchene—a former aide of Jean Monnet, the grandfather of the European movement—and announced "Right, we're going in". The premature Grand Tour of the European capitals was decided over lunch that day. "Ring George Brown's private secretary and tell him I'm a European now", he instructed.'

Really.

So we have it that Harold Wilson, short of a brainwave to win back a slipping elec- torate, decided on a slap-happy bash at the trade unions. Egged on, of course, by that fiery redhead, Barbara Castle, whose 'grow- ing belief was that the only language the General Council understood was a pistol pointed to its head'.

But, alas, it all collapsed because the trade unions were too strong for them; the Par- liamentary Labour party, as the Chief Whip told the Cabinet, could not be relied on; and the Government, going through a bad patch, was in a position of such weakness that it could not standup and fight. Anyone, including Mr Peter Jenkins it seems, could have told Mr Wilson and Mrs Castle they were doomed before they started.

Actually, the trade union leaders were in an exposed position. Not only a substantial majority of the country, but of their own members, wanted drastic reforms—as all the public opinion polls showed, and still do.

There has never been a time at which trade union leaders were less in touch with, or less in control of, their rank and file, than today. Any, and particularly a Labour, government which sticks to its guns on pro- posals which are seen to be fair and sensible can mow them down. Mrs Castle and Mr Wilson were all set to do that. So what went wrong? In my view, a simple misjudgment. The replacement of Mr John Silkin as Chief Whip by Mr Robert Mellish.

John Silkin had been conducting a very civilised attempt to liberalise party discipline.

He operated by threats, cajolements, bland- ishments and persuasion, but not, as in Labour's past, by expulsion or suspension.

By this process disagreements in the Parlia- mentary Labour party were becoming less damaging in the country. Rebelling Labour

MPS-, just like rebelling Tory MPS, were ignored and not martyred. This reduces bitterness and commotion remarkably. Silkin, as Tory Chief Whips always have done,

grasped the point that in the real crunch the loyalty of a party to its government will override its dislike of what the government is doing. No parliamentary party will deliver its own side to the enemy or force an elec- tion at the worst possible moment.

Despite difficulties over House of Lords reform, a relatively unimportant matter on whiCh the Tory leaders allowed their back- benchers a free vote, Silkin was confident that, hate it though they might, the Parlia- mentary Labour party would carry the Government's trade union legislation. So, for that matter, was I. There would have been Labour votes against it, and abstentions. But organisers of previous revolts (on prices and incomes, for instance) had been careful, if the issue was one of confidence in the Government, to see that the rebel numbers were controlled so as not to give the Con- servative opposition a majority. Thus it would have been on this occasion.

But Mr Wilson, or his advisers, felt that John Silkin was not tough enough to carry it through. A more earthy man, who talked roughly about disloyalty, seemed the better choice. But Mr Mellish, of whom I am very fond, was quite the wrong selection for this task. He was so anxious not to be labelled a martinet, a sergeant-major, that he immedi-

ately became far more susceptible to the blackmail of the dissenters than John Silkin ever had been. And, as an old trade union official, he was personally more opposed to the legislation than his predecessor.

Unfortunately Mr Douglas Houghton, for whom I have the greatest admiration and liking, was also against it. He was a splendid

chairman of the PLP but, an ex-member of the general council of the TUC, on this ques- tion he had a blind spot. The wish that the PLP would not permit the passage of the legislation was father to the advice he stated publicly and privately to the Prime Minister and Cabinet that it would not.

But there was no evidence on which to suppose this. At the numerous, and often poorly attended, party meetings on the sub- ject the issue was never put to the vote. If it had been, the Government's hundred and ten or so placemen, plus some fifty parlia- mentary private secretaries to Ministers, plus some seventy old party hacks or loyalists (like myself), would have won the day. On the

floor of the House there might have been fifty or sixty Labour votes against, and

around thirty absentions. The rebels would never have dared go so far as to defeat their own government. The Tories, who had been clamouring for trade union reform, would have been helpless to take advantage of the split. At the worst they could have done no more than abstain.

And what a famous victory it would have been. The Government would have ridden high with the public for its courage in battling to make a start on trade union re- form. With that behind it, the Labour government, which nearly won the general election this June despite its failure on trade union reform, certainly would have won it. The trade union leaders would have bleated harmlessly but the Tories would have been scuppered.

It was not to be. Told inaccurately by Mr Mellish and Mr Houghton that the legislation with penal clauses etc, could not be passed, the frightened Cabinet deserted Mr Wilson and Mrs Castle. Mr Wilson made the best of it by getting the ludicrous 'solemn under- taking' from the TUC and presenting it as a success story. What else could lie do, poor man? In fact, both he and Mrs Castle did magnificently well. The victory was almost won when, from the best of motives, they were tripped up from behind by their two chief links with the Parliamentary Labour party who were just trying to be helpful. No matter that the proposed legislation would not have solved all the problems of strikes. It would have solved a few of them and it would have demonstrated that, by taking thought and legislation, progress can be made towards modernising our trade unions.

The Conservative suggestions are less relevant and more irritating to trade union leaders. Maybe we shall have to wait for another Labour government until we can get anywhere towards the successful blueprint for all trade union movements which the great Ernest Bevin, after the war, gave to the West Germans but could not give, dearly as he wished it, to his own country. But that is another story.