Political Commentary

It could all depend on Ted

Patrick Cosgrave

In 1969 a lot of things went wrong with the Tory conference at Brighton. First of all, while the party was ensconced at that most pleasant of resorts, reclining, as it were, on a splendidly comfortable lead in the opinion polls, new Polls began to appear, showing a decline in their advantage, and the mood of the delegates became fractious. Then, several

Shadow ministers made botches of their debates — none more so than the then Mr•Quintin Hogg, who treated conference with

such contempt in the debate on immigration that he came within an ace of losing the vote. Anyway, by that Saturday morning nerves and teeth alike were on edge. The day Was saved by Mr Heath. Enjoying, it is per fectly true, all those enormous advantages Which a Tory leader does enjoy by virtue of

the way in which conference arrangements

Play up his role as tribal chieftain, he nonetheless effectively and convincingly covered the main points in dispute during the week, made new speeches for each of his failed colleagues, and asserted a masterful authority in no uncertain way. The point of this reminiscence is to suggest that he may have to do the like again this Year, for this is in many respects a deeply w,,,orried and discontented Tory conference. clections concentrate the mind wonderfully, and no mind more than the Tory mind; but, as the next election approaches, that natural tendency towards unity, order and loyalty

Which is the most precious asset of the party, Shows a tendency to fragment, a particularly dangerous tendency in the week after a Labour conference marked by its unity. The fashion in which the leftward leaning elements in Labour debates last week seemed

to be less irripOrtant by the end of the week

',than they did at the beginning wasstriking. the arrogant confidence of Mr Wilson's slap

Ping down of Mr Jenkins, his own over weening self-confidetIce on ITN on Thursday night, the conscious, deliberate and Prompted sacrifice for party unity of Mr Jack Jones, all go to indicate that the unity

achieved by the Labour party was of greater consequence than what advances (if that is the right word) they made in doctrine. It remains to be seen whether the Tories can achieve a like unity, bearing in mind, of course, that no Tory party could ever con ceivably achieve the heights of splendid disordancy easily scaled by the Labour party at trts fragmented best. The signs are not fright'LunY good for Mr 1-leath and, it must be said, "e has not, in my view, been helped by his conference managers, who seem to be losing their grip these days. _ The striking thing about much Tory discontent is that it comes from unexpected

Itiarters. You would expect the Rhodesia

°bhY to sing their familiar tune. You would 'axPect the anti-immigration legions to batter 3ein against the doors held so firmly by 'LlInisters convinced of their enlightenment. irould expect Mr Powell to be prowling oid the agenda, probing for that weak 'ITot against which he regularly throws the "eavY armour of his formidable personality • appeal. And, of course, all this., is hap'• fling. But who said this?

The danger . . is not that the new policies themselves will prove intrinsically unpopular. It is 3,!mPlY that the electorate may sense, in the ins

unctive way that electors do seem to grasp matters which have eluded even their leaders'

Fornprehension, that the Party does not fully Believe in the direction it appears to be going. sic

And if such an impression does gain ground the electorate will surely prefer to entrust its future to those who believe most firmly in, and can offer the most convincing rationale for, the policies they are presenting.

That wag not Mr Powell, nor the Monday 'Club, nor Mr Victor Montagu's new Trident Group, nor the Selsdon Group, but the Alternative Manifesto of the liberal, centrist Bow Group, written by the Chairman of the Group, Mr Peter Lilley, along with Miss Patricia Hodgson and Mr Nigel Waterson. They are worried about the abandonment of the distinctive policies on which Mr Heath was elected, and they observe elsewhere that "a government can appear to lose faith in its own distinctive approach and, by stealing its opponents' ideas, pave the way for their return."

And who said this?

A great many of our supporters are bewildered and alarmed by the impression, which has substance, that while Conservatives have governed for all but six years in the last 22, we have nonetheless been undergoing radical, even revolutionary change, some of it quite alien to the Conservative tradition; that far from resisting it we convey the impression from Westminster that we are relishing it.

That, again, was not Mr Powell, nor Mr Biffen, nor Mr Ridley. It was Mr William Deedes, member for Ashford, and a former Cabinet Minster in the Macmillan government, writing in the current Political Quarterly. Having excoriated his " compliant" colleagues at Westminster, and pointed out their dangerous separation from national sentiment on both immigration and Europe, he concludes:

In the years just ahead of us I do not see the great political divide where some politicians would now position it. I think it will prove to be broadly on this very issue: how far the people of this cosy island are willing to exert and perhaps inconvenience themselves to close the stealthily widening gap between ourselves and our

There is a different significance, then, to Mr Deedes's critique, for that last paragraph is exactly the sort of thing Mr Heath has been saying for years. (The right wing would, I fancy, argue, as Mr Powell did in his recent speech on Lord Rothschild, that the terms of such a debate are irrelevant). And if Mr Deedes, a seniOr, respected and responsible backbencher can say the same thing again with, at most, twenty months to go to a general election, then his judgement can only be that his Leader has failed to get through.

The most formidable parliamentary, and probably , the most formidable popular, critique of this government's activities and policies has been from the right. Few would, I think, challenge the judgement that the right has been far more stringently logical and far more willing to argue consequences, than any other body of opinion in the country. Indeed, it would be surprising if this were not the case, given the elegance of Mr Powell's mind: and it should also be said that one of the main differences between this parliament and its post-war predecessors has been the articulacy of the right. However, discontent and dissidence have now clearly been made manifest in other quarters, and this seems to be due, not merely to straightforward, simple critical dissatisfaction on the part of such young people as Mr Lilley, Miss Hodgson and Mr Waterson with Government policies, but to the growing awareness of all but the most purblind politicians of deep grass roots unhappiness in the party.

It ought to be said, of course, that though these discontents have been sharpened recently, they have existed for quite some time. That they have not become as prominent as they might, especially at conference time, has been largely due to the superb natural discipline of party delegates, and the super-efficient management at Central Office. Perhaps the most remarkable.open clash between rebels and platform took place last year, when Mr ?owe!l played a clever trick to get himself into a favoured speaking position in the immigration debate, and when all the stops were pulled out to reduce his support. Both sides claimed victory, but much of Powell's support stayed solid, in a fashion never before seen at a Tory conference. This year, party managers, instead of following the previous policy of putting on pressure to ensure a rallying behind the leadership in critical debates, have allowed for two open sessions

— on economics, in which three ministers will speak, and on foreign affairs. In neither case, it is clearly hoped, will there be such clear lines of argument, or so clear a motion for calculations to be made about how many ' support the platform, and how many do not: in permissiveness will unhappiness and criticism dissolve, One can see the logic of this

— and once .before the Tories did have an immensely successful open session — but the scheme obviously relieves any critical Tory conscience of pressures towards loyalty.

All the main Labour factions came to . Blackpool with the need for unity uppermost in their minds. Nobody can be quite sure in

what mood the Tories will entrain for the North: all motions to be printed in the conference handbook must be in Smith Square by July 20, and so provide little guide to the temper of an October gathering. All one can see is that, with the fate of Phase Three very much in the balance, with the European adventure becoming sourer day by day, with the Government stuck in a number of ruts, and with many grassroots Tories as bewildered as they are frustrated, and with a general election so .close, much — perhaps everything — will depend on Mr Heath's iron capacities. He would not wish it otherwise.