Mrs Thatcher's year
John Grigg
Mrs Thatcher, now entering her second year as Conservative leader, has a firm hold on the Party in Parliament and in the constituencies. But does she look like scoring a landslide victory at the next election? Does she even look like winning it at all?
It has become normal since 1945 to expect the Government of the day to be markedly less popular than the main Opposition party at any time when unemployment is on the high side. In January 1972, when the figure reached nearly 930,000, the Heath Government was trailing Labour by 71 points in the Gallup poll (as reported in the Daily Telegraph). In January of this year, with unemployment close to 1,375,000 and moving up fast, the Wilson Government actually had a 14 per cent lead, according to Gallup. A recent ORC poll admittedly put the Tories ahead but much less than Labour's lead in 1972.
When so much should be favouring Mrs Thatcher, why is there any doubt about her prospects? What is hindering her advance? Beyond question one major source of weakness is the glaringly public rift between her and Mr Heath. To some extent she remains a prisoner of the circumstances in which she became leader. By standing against Mr Heath on the first ballot she gathered to herself all the hopes and resentments of those who, for whatever reason, felt that he had to be destroyed. And by standing with Sir Keith Joseph's support she became, more especially, the candidate of disappointed Selsdonians who, until the first election of 1974, had looked (with a greater or lesser degree of furtiveness) to Mr Enoch Powell, and who then for a time looked to Sir Keith. In the misleading jargon of politics, she was thought to be a true representative of "the Right" against one who had betrayed "Conservative principles".
In fact, she is no more of an ideological Right-winger than Mr Heath (or, for that matter, Mr Powell). Like any other politician who seriously aspires to be Prime Minister, she is a moderate and a pragmatist. When forming her Shadow Cabinet she was careful to give Sir Keith the nebulous job of brooding over future policy, while to the post of Shadow Chancellor she appointed the more flexible Sir Geoffrey Howe. Equally significant was her choice of Mr Ian Gilmour—and recently, to succeed him, of Mr William Whitelaw—as Shadow Home Secretary. Both men largely share Mr Roy Jenkins's views on the most sensitive issues within the Home sphere. Mrs Thatcher seems to have no intention of exploiting either immigration or law and order as partisan issues. (She does, indeed, expressly believe in the death penalty for murderers and terrorists, but has not attempted to make it party policy.)
The Russians called her the Iron Lady after her admirable speech drawing attention to their menacing armed strength. The nickname will be valuable to her, and is at least partly deserved. She certainly has the metallic ruthlessness without which it is hard to obtain, and even harder to exercise, power. But in another sense she is not the Iron Lady that many Tory MPs thought they were voting for just over a year ago. So far as they are concerned she is the Lady in the Iron Mask.
She is not, therefore, divided from Mr Heath by ideology, but rather by intense personal animus. He feels that she owed her place in the Cabinet to him, never challenged him when he was strong, but took advantage of his weakness, to bring him down. She feels that he had a fair innings as leader and has behaved in a thoroughly unsporting manner since the umpire gave him "out-. Neither will easily forgive the other. But politics has its reasons ...
A year or even nine months ago both of them may have cherished hopes that time has falsified. Mr Heath may have virtually assumed that the present Government would come a cropper, that there would have to be a coalition, and that he would then return to power as one of the country's saviours. That eventuality is still possible, though much less likely. Mrs Thatcher may have tended to assume that Mr Heath, deprived of the leadership, would dwindle in stature and fade into insignificance. But in fact the opposite has occurred. The referendum campaign gave him a tremendous boost and he now seems more relaxed and confident than at any previous stage in his career.
The moment of reconciliation may come when both realise that their futures depend upon their working together. The present feud is scarcely less disastrous to the Tory Party than the Bevan-Gaitskell feud was to Labour. True, Mr Heath has no large body of overt supporters in Parliament or among party workers, comparable with the Bevanites. But the impression of a divided leadership, and its effect upon the floating voter (or differential abstainer) who decides elections, must be very similar.
The split between Bevan and Gaitskell was essentially personal in its origins, though the simple-minded on both sides were encouraged to regard it as a clash of principles. Bevan was indignant at being passed over for both the Foreign Office and the Exchequer, and the appointment of a junior man to the Exchequer added insult to injury. He was not a genuine Left-winger —as his fans discovered, to their horror, w.her. he made his famous speech repudiating unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Apart from the need to present a united front to the electors, reconciliation is vital for another reason. Without Mr Heath the Tory front bench looks desperately unconvincing as an alternative government. This would matter less if the Labour front bench were weak and colourless, but unfortunately it has never been more rich in talent. Even Mr Heath's team came badly out of the comparison, but now the difference is embarrassing. Mr Heath suffered, above all, from the alienation of Mr Powell. Mrs Thatcher suffers from the alienation of Mr Powell and Mr Heath.
This raises a fascinating question. If she can make it up with Mr Heath, is there any chance at all of making it up with the other Tory "king over the water"? Mr Powell is now over the water in the literal as well ;Is the metaphorical sense. He no longer sits as an English Tory, but has crossed the Irish Sea to become an Ulster Unionist. Another "water barrier" is that unfortunate Latin quotation about the Tiber foaming with blood, Moreover he conclusively forfeited the goodwill of many Tories when he advised people to vote Labour in 1974. It can plausibly be argued that, by doing so, he lost the Party enough seats to put Labour into power.
All the same, he is one of the very few British, politicians with a substantial personal following, and his return to the fold would almost certainly be a big net gain to the Tory Party. It has to be remembered, too, that he has a much better record, as a Minister than as a rogue elephant. In office he was not a "Powellite". and it would be a pity if he never again had the opportunity to display the constructive gifts that were apparent during his tenure of the Ministry of Health.
The personal problems involved in bringing him back are, however, far more daunting than the problem of reintegrating Mr Heath. And it would be harder for both men to make peace with each other than for either to make peace with Mrs Thatcher. But again, politics has its reasons . . .
Previous page
