POLITICS
The electoral appeal of striving to be a nation once again
PETER RIDDELL
Disraeli has a lot to answer for. His vivid development of the idea of Two Nations in Sybil, and his later evocation of the Tories as a national party or nothing, have been a double-edged legacy to his successors: both an inspiration, taken up at varying times by all wings of the Conserva- tive Party, and a hostage to fortune, in providing ammunition to critics.
It has been Disraeli's concept that has, implicitly and explicitly, been central to the renewed discussion this month about gaps in British society — 'the divided nation' as Labour entitled its Commons debate on the economy on Tuesday. Disraeli was writing about the rich and the poor but his Two Nations have also come to be taken as the North and the South.
Several separate incidents have, as so often in politics, accumulated to create a major issue. There have been the publica- tion of the largely predictable statistics about the distribution of job losses, the delay in payment of regional development grants and, perhaps most striking, the unexpected passions aroused by the BTR bid for Pilkington's. There was undisguised relief among ministers that BTR dropped its bid. The decision was for commercial reasons of course, though it conveniently stole the Opposition's thunder just before the debate.
The bid had been presented in stark terms. Pilkington had been taken to sym- bolise all that is best in British manage- ment — a good investment record, high research and development expenditure and a regionally based company with a social conscience and responsibility. BTR was represented as a sinister predator. There was much exaggeration and over- simplification in this comparison. But somehow the bid expressed the frustrations of provincial Britain and industry at the dominance of metropolitan institutions and City finance. In another sense it was a clash of Tory paternalism and free-market theory.
All this has naturally been seized upon by Labour to highlight a North/South rift. There is certainly evidence of such a divide but it is not nearly as simple as that. At one level it is arguable that the divide is at least as much between the prosperous and grow- ing east (apart from the north-east) and a depressed west. There are also big con- strasts within regions, notably between cities and elsewhere. Some parts of Lon- don have very high unemployment and some depressed industrial areas in north- ern England or Scotland are next door to prosperous small towns.
Yet a North/South division still exists to the extent that many of the run-down inner cities are concentrated in the northern half of the country. So if the west Midlands and inner London are added, a striking, if not necessarily neat division remains.
There are direct political implications. Since the mid-1950s there has been an underlying shift towards Labour in north- ern England, Scotland and the more urban areas and towards the Conservatives in the rest of the country, particularly southern England. This mainly, but not entirely, can be associated with differences in levels of unemployment and other social and econo- mic factors. For instance, the number of Conservative MPs in northern England and Scotland after the 1983 general elec- tion was 89, compared with 108 in 1959 when the Tories had 32 fewer seats in the UK as a whole. The arrival of the Alliance has made surprisingly little difference. Its electoral support is spread evenly around the country and its parliamentary repre- sentation is still heavily in the Celtic fringes, as was the Liberals' previously.
This regional imbalance looks likely to grow. The Marplan survey carried out for the Press Association last October (big enough to allow a sensible regional break- down) showed that the biggest relative improvement in Labour's position com- pared with the 1983 general election had occurred in northern England, Yorkshire and. Humberside and Scotland. These are all areas of considerable existing Labour strength and may result in even larger majorities for sitting Labour MPs. And, while this underlines the enormous task Labour faces, it does indicate where Labour is likely to advance. There are still seats to be won by Labour in the north- west and Yorkshire. Taking, say, the 60 seats Labour is closest to winning from the Tories, about half are in the northern half of the country, several in the Midlands, mainly in the east, where the Tories did well in 1983, and there is a cluster in inner London. But only a handful of these winnable seats are in the prosperous south and east, on the fringes of London and in major cities.
Hence, according to the possible general election result shown by the current state of the polls, Britain will be more politicallY polarised, at least in terms of the geog- raphic distribution of seats. The Tories will have even fewer seats in the north and Scotland (with possibly profound constitu- tional implications there) and Labour will still have a small voice in the south outside London. These divisions, both actual and prospective, affect the nature of the politic- al debate. Labour speaks as the party of declining Britain — defending the interests of the unemployed, of the poor and of industrial workers in contracting sectors -- partly because its leaders themselves repre- sent just that type of constituency. That applies to Mr Neil Kinnock, Mr ROY, Hattersley, Mr John Smith and Mr Gerald Kaufman. Few Labour MPs represent the new Britain of high technology industries and services. This experience affects the party's priorities — and therefore limits its appeal to that more successful Britain, vital for its electoral success.
The Conservative Party is not an exact mirror image. Its very landslide in 1983 has ensured that it still has a number of MPs in areas of high unemployment. And theY have been among those expressing most, concern about the North/South divide On about Pilkington. But they are also the most vulnerable at the next election. The Tories could still retain office while losing many such MPs in the north and limiting the damage in the south and the east. The Tories' advantage, and Labour's probleal, is that a majority of constituencies are in the south and east.
There is a strange paradox for Labour. While banging the drum about the North/ South divide may do the party good among its traditional supporters in the north and Scotland, it may have less resonance in the south, in those seats in the London sub' urbs, Hertfordshire and Essex which have held to the key to so many elections. It Kinnock is well aware of this dilemma — of the need to appeal to the haves as well as the have nots. Success in bridging that gaP, explained Labour's victories in 1945 an 1964-66. But, as Disraeli knew so well; talking about Two Nations is a successful political tactic, as well as a moving appeal' only when a party appears to be speaking for One Nation.
Peter Riddell is political editor of the Financial Times.
Previous page
