Coalition must be the answer
Anthony Nutting
Even more alarming and depressing than the latest decline of the pound is the unthinking haste with which our political leaders have dismissed Mr Harold Macmillan's call for a government of national unity. For it shows just how arrogant, irresponsible and complacent are those who claim to govern us.
Of course we need a government of all parties at this moment of crisis when we face dangers in some respects greater even than those which threatened us in either the first or the second world war. For the fact is that, if we the people are to be asked—and rightly so—both to work harder and to accept the sacrifices in our living standards which are necessary for our ultimate economic recovery, then we the people are entitled to ask of our political leaders that they should accept the sacrifice of abandoning their party games and petty squabbles and set an example of united endeavour in Cabinet and Parliament. •
The writing on the walls of Walsall and Workington may well portend a Conservative victory at the next general election. But this does not alter the fact that the measures which must be taken, and taken now, to ensure our survival are certain to be so painful that only a coalition government could carry them. If, for instance, we are to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, our current budget deficit of over £10,000 million and to bring down government expenditure to levels which can be supported from taxation at rates which do not destroy every remaining incentive, then all parties in Parliament must bear their share of responsibility and not be allowed to make political capital by disowning measures which they know to be essential and which very probably they themselves adopted when in office. And if these measures are to be accepted in the country, the public must be able to see that party dogma and divisive policies, whether of the Right or the Left, have been abandoned and that the spirit of unity and sacrifice is being practised as well as preached by their political leaders.
The crisis we face is largely a crisis of confidence. Industry lacks confidence to invest in new plant and methods; the public distrusts the politicians; and the world outside has little faith in our ability to surmount our problems. Small wonder, when the party in power has shown so clearly that, to appease the lunatic Left within its own ranks, it must necessarily embark on a series of further nationalisation measures which are as irrelevant to our current needs as they are costly to our already over-burdened taxpayers. Small wonder too that the insanities which emerged from this year's Labour Party con.-ference helped to precipitate another run on the pound. For even if our present ministers are not inclined to nationalise the banks, insurance companies etc for the time being, who can feel certain on their record that, next year or the year after, they will not feel compelled to make another abject surrender to the Left for the sake of party unity ? Mr Callaghan may avow that the latest fall in value of the pound has not blown his government off course. But since this course is entirely one of drift before the prevailing leftist winds, his words are scarcely reassuring.
As for the Conservative alternative, it is hard to see how a government under Mrs Thatcher at this stage could restore confidence at home or abroad. Deplorable though it may be. the return of the Tories to power today would probably so inflame the passions of the Left as to make it virtually impossible for them to govern. For if the Labour moderates cannot control the militants in office, how much less opportunity, or indeed motive, would they have to do so when freed from the responsibilities of government? They certainly were not very successful during the latter stages of Mr Heath's premiership.
It is clear therefore that party government, whether Labour or Conservative, cannot meet the needs of these critical times. Whichever party is in power, confidence at
home and abroad will continue to decline and the pound will continue to fall until finally our living standards collapse. At this point the rule of law could give way t° general anarchy, and to restore order, let alone solvency, would demand recourse to totalitarian government. Are our politicians so arrogant, so blinded by smug self-satisfaction, that they cannot see how little time we have to work out our salvation by democratic processes?
We are told that Labour leaders are haunted by the ghost of Ramsay Mae' Donald and the fear of splitting the party. But as the latest antics of Labour's National Executive have shown, the party is alreadY split wide open. Moreover, as Mr Macmillan pointed out in his recent broadcast, RamsaY MacDonald in effect joined the Conservative Party. Nobody is asking Mr Callaghan to do this. On the contrary, it is suggested that he do as Mr Churchill did in 1940, that is, invite leading members of the Opposition parties in Parliament to join him for a limited period in a government designed to close our ranks and restore confidence in our destiny at home and overseas. In all probability the Labour Left would opt out of such a merger. So too would sorne right-wing Tories and others from such groups as the Ulster Unionists. But the coalition could only benefit from the absence of such men as Messrs Foot, Ben° and Powell and, with the strength it would draw from the support of those many MPs of moderate and patriotic persuasions in all parties and in the trade unions, it should be able to withstand the onslaughts of the extremists.
There is however one problem which Mr Macmillan failed to mention, yet which would have to be resolved. Since this present Parliament has a maximum of only three years to run, the coalition leader might well feel it necessary to seek a full five-year mall" date from the electorate. In that event .3 Labour (or Tory) MP who supported coal!' t ion might find himself opposed by an ant!' coalition Labour (or Tory) candidate. 10 addition to the candidates of the opposition parties, in which case his vote would be split and he might be defeated. Clearly the answer to this problem would be for the coalition parties to agree to an electoral truce such as existed during the last war and to undertake not to oppose any sitting men" ber or candidate who supported the coalition.
The effect of this self-denying ordinance would of course be to freeze to some extent( the existing composition of the House 01 Commons. But if such an electoral sacrifice was necessary to win the war, is it not equallY imperative today ? For let us be under n° illusions that, if we continue to play our party games and refuse to close our ranks, we shall get neither help nor sympathy fr°111 the world outside. And we shall inflict uPorl ourselves a mortal ruin such as, in all our history, not even the most mighty and menacing of our enemies has been able t° contrive.
Previous page
