Political Commentary
is the left-centre doomed?
John Grigg
The British political system depends upon an alternation of governments representing either the moderate right or the moderate left. How these terms are defined must inevitably vary according to circumstances and personal taste, but at any given moment there are policies which a majority of people in the country, or a minority so powerful that it cannot be ignored, regards As outrageous and unacceptable. Such policies have to be avoided if our system is to continue to work.
There can be little doubt that the present moderate consensus rejects alike the Marxism of the extreme left and the neo-Cobdenism of the 'radical right.' But howls it to be asserted ? In the nature of British politics the middle is distributed between parties, so that moderation normally prevails whichever party is in office. Today, however, there is a more serious danger of ideological polarisation than at any time since the war, and those (a much diminished number) who identify actively with the big parties tend to be increasingly bloody-minded and doctrinaire.
Many would say that the Liberal Party is the nearest thing we have to an explicitly centre party, though in fact its lunatic fringe is second to none in lunacy, and in recent times the party has attracted right-wing Tory voters when a Tory government has been in trouble. Nevertheless it sees itself, and is largely seen by others, as the party of the centre, and to the extent that it does occupy the middle ground its leadership has clearly decided to operate from a left-of-centre rather than a right-of-centre position.
Mr Callaghan, for his part, cannot fail to regard the Liberals as the most useful of all the minor parties, from his point of view. They number thirteen in the House of Commons, and therefore count as twentysix in a division, whereas those Ulster Unionists who have been helping him number only seven (fourteen in a division). Moreover, unlike the SNP—but like the Government—the Liberals have a strong interest in postponing an election. If mutually advantageous terms can be agreed, the prudential basis for a working arrangement between them and the Government undoubtedly exists.
Mr Steel has stated his preliminary terms, which are on the whole so restrained and elastic that he evidently means them to facilitate negotiation. He has left room for bargaining on the details of a modified devolution scheme, and has made a generalised demand for tax reform which Mr Healey should have no difficulty in going at least some way to meet. More significantly, the Liberal leader has not referred to electoral reform in the United Kingdom, but has confined himself to requesting PR for direct elections to the European Parliament—though even there he has added the qualification that his party might have to 'amend' its views on 'the exact system,' and that it 'would be prepared to consider an alternative system' if it meant 'getting the elections arranged for the target date.'
So far, nobody could accuse Mr Steel of overplaying his hand. But there is one issue on which he seems to have committed himself, and very precisely, to a demand which . he must know will make for conflict rather than agreement, and that is the issue of industrial democracy. He has declared the Liberals to be 'anti-Bullock' but keen on promoting 'industrial democracy based on elected works councils, profit-sharing schemes, and equal voting rights for workers and shareholders in board elections.' In other words, he has dismissed any idea of evolving a system of election to boards through the machinery of the trade unions.
The Labour Manifesto Group, in its recently published pamphlet What We Must Do (price 50p) has stated the alternative view with great cogency. 'The purpose of electing employee representatives through trade unions rather than directly or through works councils on the German model is to preserve a single channel of representation. If elections were made through other machinery a rival source of power would be built up which could only lead to industrial conflict.'
Fortunately for the chances of some kind of deal between the Liberals and the Government during the present session, industrial democracy is not an immediate issue, in the sense that devolution, taxation and European direct elections are. It is, therefore, quite likely that an informal bargain will be struck, which will help the Government to survive until, as it hopes, the economy is in better shape and the electoral outlook brighter.
But there is no chance at this stage of a Lib-Labcoalition, and very little, even, of an electoral pact such as Ramsay MacDonald entered into with the Liberal Chief Whip, Herbert Gladstone, before the 1906 election. The thought of it must be very tantalising to both parties, seeing that in 189 of the 276 seats won by Tories at the last election the combined Liberal and Labour vote would have kept the Tories out. But the bare arithmetic has, of course, nothing to do with reality on the ground, where in most cases neither side would, in practice, be able to deliver anything like its full vote to the other, even if there were agreement to
Spectator 19 March 1977 support one or the other's candidate. In all probability any temporary acconlmodat ion between the Government and the Liberals will be at an end by the time the next election is fought. Meanwhile it will Suit the Liberals (and more especially Mr Steel himself, as a Scottish Member) if they are able to claim that they have helped the Government to get an improved and rationalised devolution Bill through the House of Commons. It will also be good for them to seem to have influenced the shape of this year's Budget, and to seem to have forced the Government to go ahead with direct European elections, preferably con° ceding, if only in that context, the princinie of PR.
But the fate of the left-centre at the next election—perhaps for the indefinite future-turns upon the success or failure of the democratic socialist counter-attack within the Labour Party. This got off to a good start at a meeting at the Central Hall, Westminster, no 19 February, attended bY trade unionists and key workers from the constituencies. The meeting was eloquently addressed by William Rodgers, the Transport Secretary, who organised the triume phant counter-attack against neutralism in 1960-1. No such comprehensive triumph is to be expected this year. The Labour Party is in a much worse state than it was on the previous occasion, and is further handicapped hY being in office. Instead of being able to point to a glorious future under democratic socialism, Labour moderates now have to defend the record of a Government in which they are preponderant, but which has not as yet delivered the goods. It is, therefore, too much to hope that the balance of power on the national executive will be reversed by the end of this year, or that the character of the party confereno will be transformed. The most, perhaPs, t h ,avt can be aspired to is recapturing the 'Par," treasurership from the left. This would ve a victory of major symbolic impact, but 0. long way from the total redemption of the party that the moderates seek. For them, a particularly difficult issue is direct elections to Europe, because it is one on which they are not themselves united: Until the Common Market question is completely out of the way, the campaigners for democratic socialism are bound to .13e. subject to disturbing cross-currents.I TI1.7 referendum largely settled the matter, hot will be settled once and for all only whe.11_ direct elections have been voted. There I! reason to believe that the crossing of throt obstacle will make Britain's commitment the Community irreversible, because Ol fee); then will the people themselves begin to truly involved in it. bout Whatever reservations some our La_ moderates may have about Britain's the in Europe, they must surely realise that th defeat of direct elections would be 81.1, immense victory for the hard-line left, allf therefore a defeat for democratic socialist" from which it might never recover.
Previous page
