Political Commentary

Dangerous liaison

John Grigg

The Lib-Lab deal which kept the Government in office last Wednesday is clearly advantageous to Mr Callaghan, and potentially so to Mrs Thatcher, but full of danger for Mr Steel. It is not a coalition or even (according to Michael Foot) a pact. The Liberals are neither part of the Government nor, in the full sense, allies of the Government—as their vote on defence showed. In theory this may mean that they will share the credit for anything that goes right over the next six months or so, without sharing the blame for what goes wrong. In practice it is far more likely to mean the opposite.

The Liberals now have responsibility without power, which is perhaps even less to be desired than the harlot's power without responsibility. The only power they have they had anyway—the power to bring the Government down by their votes in the House of Commons. The deal has added nothing to that power, but rather, for the time being, reduced its credibility. Many will interpret their agreement to keep Labour in office as chiefly due to their reluctance to face an immediate general election; and in Scotland, more especially, it must be felt that they are almost desperately anxious to get rid of the odium of their vote against the guillotine before facing the Scottish electors. To do so, they will have to sustain the Government until a new and improved devolution Bill has reached the statute book ; that is to say, on an optimistic view, until well into next year.

The Liberals' claim to have extracted big policy concessions from the Government is unlikely to cut much ice with the public, because any fool can see that there would be no majority for further socialist measures in this Parliament, even if Mr Callaghan wished to introduce them, which any fool can see he does not. The Government's resolve to legislate for direct elections to Europe springs from an agreement with our EEC partners rather than from the deal with the Liberals, and if a PR system is recommended (subject to a free vote on the Labour side) it will be because the first-past-the-post system might, in that context, prove extremely damaging to Labour.

The elaborate consultative procedures established under the deal are no substitute for power. In their talks with Labour ministers the Liberal spokesmen will be shadows indeed. Too many of them have to be peers, because there are only thirteen Liberal MPs, but above all Mr Steel's team will lack the support of expert advisers and researchers on anything like the scale needed to match the know-how of ministers, backed by the whole apparatus of the state.

The idea that we are witnessing a funda mental change in the nature of British government is, therefore, pathetically wide of the mark. The TUC and the CBI have,the resources for discussing policy with any government on terms that are not too unequal, and of course the TUC nowadays has power which transcends the force of argument. But the Liberals will be hopelessly outgunned in their formal encounters with ministers.

The Liberals' weakness is well illustrated —despite appearances to the contrary—by the memorandum on devolution which they submitted to the Prime Minister last week and published at a press conference in Glasgow on 25 March. This memorandum wassaid, vaguely, to have been 'drawn up by a group of academics,' the implication being that a number of dedicated Liberals from the universities had come to the aid of the party. In fact, the document was essentially concocted under the auspices of an independent body, the Outer Circle Policy Unit, financed by the Rowntree Trust.

The Outer Circle is a sort of unofficial think tank, whose director is James Cornford, formerly professor of politics at Edinburgh University. With him, a group has been working on devolution since last October, and an early draft of their scheme was sent to about 120 people, including representatives of the three main parties. This did not contain the fiscal proposals, which are perhaps the most important feature of the scheme, but it did contain much material on the definition of powers, as between the central and devolved governments, and on the need for judicial review.

The final version, which provides (to put it mildly) the basis for the Liberal Party's memorandum, was sent to Mr Steel rather than to other party leaders, because it seemed that he was in a position to make the best use of it. The fact that Mark Bonham Carter (former Liberal MP, Asquith's grandson and Jo Grimond's brother-in-law) is chairman of the Outer Circle must not be taken to mean that it has engaged in a conspiracy with the Liberal Party. The Outer Circle's intellectual resources are available to any party which shows an interest in its work.

The Liberal Party has, of course, been committed for years to devolution and has criticised the Government's Bill on grounds which could well have been adduced without any prompting from the Outer Circle. To suggest that on this of all subjects Mr Steel is merely the mouthpiece for an outside organisation would be absurd. But it is true to say that, whereas the Government has the Civil Service and the Conservative Party its Research Department, the Liberals are relatively deprived and therefore dependent upon

Spectator 2 April 197/ whatever ad hoc assistance they can lay their hands on.

Formalised consultation with the Government was not among Mr Steel's original demands. It cropped up quite late in the discussions which led to the Lib-Lab deal, and Mr Steel seems to have felt that it was vital if he was to justify to his followers in the country the Liberal MPs' vote to keeP Labour in office. But would it not have been better, from their point of view, to secure the Government's statements on future policY without getting involved in the appearance (for it is no more) of power-sharing? The deal has enabled Mr Callaghan t° strengthen his hold upon centre opinion, and it may also have driven some right-wing Liberals towards the Conservatives. Mrs Thatcher has a chance to turn last week:5 events to good account if she will make it easy for disillusioned Liberals to join her. This is surely the moment for her to ein" phasise the Tory Party's open-mindedness and moderation, and to avoid at all costs being made to seem isolated on the right-as Lord Hailsham has already powerful" advised. Her speech immediately after Mr HealeY's Budget speech was a brave and quite successful comeback after last week's fiasco. Few parliamentary performances are more difficult than the Leader of the Opposition's in' stant reaction to the Budget. The best in recent memory was, oddly enough, Sir Alec Douglas-Home's in 1965; but Mrs Thatcher did well enough on Tuesday. In general her remarks were not undulY abrasive, and it seemed gratuitous rudeness that dozens of Labour MPs left the Chamber while she was speaking, until the Labour benches were about half empty. Not that the .House was full for the Chancellor's statement ; there were gaps on both sides. Mr Healey was listened to with very little sign of emotion, real or synthetic. There were Tory jeers and some Labour counter-cheers, when he spoke of 'consolidating the gains we had made, and someone shouted 'Where is he?' when Sir Harold Wilson's committee, on financial institutions was mention' (Sir Harold was not present; he very seldo

is.) There was also a good laugh rne

when the Chancellor said that pipe tobacco played large part in the lives of many retired peoP] a

e. The left cheered, and Tories were curiouslitY silent, when he spoke of measures against ta _ avoidance. But it was the left's turn to silent when he said that high taxation wealc ened incentives, though there was only on: cry of 'Shame' when he announced the ralo, ing of thresholds for those who, because ! inflation, had become liable to the high' rates of tax.

Mr Healey's Budget is eminently con' servative, and nobody who watched Mr Callaghan on Nationwide last week cat" doubt that he is appealing to the conservast tive heart of the country. On policy he is itit —but only just—left of centre, and in sP!!_. well to the right of it. Left-wingers, in Pail' ment at any rate, are his prisoners; and s°, would seem, are the Liberals.