Political Commentary

Lady in waiting

John Grigg

If a few foreigners had not decided to keep the present Government in office by propping up the pound, Margaret Thatcher might even now be Prime Minister. Next time sterling collapses the job may well be hers. But is she really equal to it, or are the foreign arbiters of our fate justified in going to such lengths to avoid a Conservative government under her leadership?

It is notoriously difficult to cut a convincing figure as a Leader of the Opposition who has never been Prime Minister. That is something which Tory MPs may not have borne sufficiently in mind in their precipitate haste to get rid of Mr Heath. Whatever his faults, and whatever the failures of his government, he would now seem a more credible alternative to Mr Callaghan than Mrs Thatcher can possibly seem—simply because people can remember him as Prime Minister, and it is easier to (emember than to imagine.

But it does not follow that Mrs Thatcher was wrong to stand against him, though in doing so she showed extraordinary ruthlessness (itself, by the way, an important qualification for the Premiership) and disloyalty to the man who made her a Cabinet minister. Granted the intensity of anti-Heath feeling at the time, it is quite likely that if she had not been in the field an even less credible person would have been elected leader; Mr Edward du Cann, for instance. The thought of what might haNe been should in some degree mitigate Mr Heath's understandable resentment.

Mrs Thatcher's chief asset is her sex. Many Labour women may be tempted to vote for her just because she is a woman, and a certain number of men may vote for her from motives of chivalry. There is also perhaps a fairly general feeling that it would be rather fun to have a woman Prime Minister.

In other respects it cannot be said that she has made very much impact, and such impact as she has made has been, on the whole, rather unfortunate. Her tone has been relentlessly partisan but she has so far failed to unify even her own party, let alone the nation.

All leading politicians now make too many set speeches, in which the smell of midnight oil—and other people's midnight oil at that—is overpowering. But Mrs Thatcher's have the added defect of being too philosophic in character. The English are capable of enjoying speeches in which sharp factual criticism is spiced with wit and ennobled by the occasional touch of poetic imagery. But they are bored to tears by philosophy.

Mrs Thatcher's favourite theme is freedom, and a very great theme it is. But her generalised dissertations upon it are apt to become tedious, and are also not wholly free from naivety. Has she forgotten that some prisoners grow to love their chains? Britain in the toils of bureaucracy has some of the psychological traits of an old lag, who grumbles all the time but is secretly reluctant to be set free.

Excessive fondness for broad statements of principle has too often been accompanied by an unwillingness on Mrs Thatcher's part to apply them resolutely in particular cases. The worst example was her failure to denounce the Cod War. To have done so would have given specific point to her warnings about the Russian naval menace, since a policy which might have resulted in Iceland's withdrawal from NATO was obviously a gift to the Soviet Union. But presumably she shrank from taking a line which might have antagonised chauvinistic voters.

Few political leaders actually like criticism, but some appreciate the value of independent advice, however unpalatable. Mrs Thatcher does not seem to be of their number. The atmosphere around her is unduly reverential and she is in danger of becoming the principal victim of her own cult.

As yet she has appeared to the world at large as a clever and tough, but limited, politician who regards social democrats as scarcely less noxious than Marxist revolutionaries. Her image is distinctly wrong for a would-be Prime Minister in present circumstances, and if she is to demonstrate that it does her less than justice she has no time to lose.

She must take a few calculated risks, both to broaden her appeal and to give herself room for manoeuvre. The first priority is to do her very utmost to heal the rift in the Tory Party which her own election, and subsequent rather vindictive actions, created. One easy step would be to ask Mr Peter Walker to rejoin the Shadow Cabinet. He is too able a man to waste, and if his local government reform was calamitous, so—and for similar reasons—was Sir Keith Joseph's reform of the Health Service. Both men should do penance together, reflecting upon the pitfalls of an over-technocratic approach to government.

But of course the really vital reconciliation would be between her and Mr Heath. It is too much to expect her to admit publicly that his support is necessary to her, or to expect him to hail her as an inspired leader and to proclaim his readiness to serve under her. But nothing must be said or done to prejudice his acceptance of the Foreign Office if and when she becomes Prime Minister. Her present cultivation of Sir Christopher Soames would be foolish and wrong if its ulterior purpose were to make him, rather

Spectator 19 June 1916 than Mr Heath, Foreign Secretary. Relations with the trade unions are equally crucial, and the right man to handle them is Mr William Whitelaw. It should not be beneath his dignity to serve as Employment

Secretary, an assignment which would make or break the Thatcher government. And meanwhile he should be availing himself of every opportunity to talk quietly with trade union leaders. There have been two serious mistakes in

Opposition policy towards the trade unions since Mrs Thatcher became leader. First, too much has been made of the constitutional issue. The genius of the British Constitution is that it adapts itself to reality. Trade union power is now a fact of life and instead of being petulantly legalistic about it the 0111/°sition should be thinking hard how to change the Constitution to take account of the new phenomenon.

The other mistake has been to give an

impression of ambivalence on the need for a pay policy. The 'small print' may have been all right, but the general effect of Opposition statements has been confusing. In fact, there is no disagreement among Tory leaders on the principle of wage restraint. When,in last, week's vote of censure debate, Mr G rimon0 was saying that pay policy had come to staY and that the next government would not get rid of it, Sir Keith Joseph was nodding vigorously in assent. But this gesture was not even recorded in Hansard. In the absence of ring" ing public declarations, the Opposition hes left itself open to the charge that it cares leSS than the Government about the role of wage restraint in any policy to beat inflation.

Scotland, inevitably an Achilles heel of the Government (because Labour still has

many seats to lose there), has been tilad.e gratuitously an Achilles heel of the OpPosl' tion as well. It is essential for Mrs Thatchet. to adopt a more flexible approach to Scottisn nationalism, and she should not ecluate Scottish nationalism with the SNP. It would be a bold stroke if, as Prinle Minister, she were to offer the post of SeCci tary for Scotland to Mr Grimond. This co t10; probably not be done until after a genee,a, election in which the Liberals had been cloos bered, but it will certainly not be done unles_ she is prepared to modify her too-rigid line on Scottish devolution. Another excellent move would be to recal .1 Lord Boyle of Handsworth, perhaps to f. senior non-executive post in the Cabilledist. Such appointments could not be opera p) cussed in advance, but if she were simPlY hint at a desire to form a government of all hint talents, representing every shade of111°_r erate opinion, she would do herself and "' cause a power of good. a

Is it Walter Mittyish to consider howci,

Thatcher Ministry might be comPose„_ Hardly, because events may bring her to4 Premiership in a matter of monthS meanwhile she must work overtime to Pr' that she is not a narrow partisan, more Orl, dally since Labour, though a sectio party, now has a leader who looks a la sounds national.