2 JULY 1965, Page 19

Where the Liberals Stand

By MARK BONHAM CARTER

TIIIRTEEN years of Conservative government are enough for the country as a whole and too much for the Conservative party in particu- lar. When the chairman of the Conservative party uses Lady Churchill's life-peerage as an instru- ment of political warfare you know the party must be in a fairly neurotic and jumpy condition. It needs an extended period in opposition to sort out its leadership problems and to decide what kind of party it really wants to be. As far as the general public is concerned very little progress seems to have been made in either direc- tion since last October. How seriously, for ex- ample, does it take the stimulating but rather academic neo-Cobdenism of Enoch Powell, who, in the true Conservative tradition, has espoused the ideas of the past and proposes to apply them to the future? Is the new commitment to Europe sincere? If so, we• should know by what means the dead duck was so miraculously resurrected and whether the Europe Sir Alec wants to join is Gaulliste or one to be built on the lines ad- vocated by M. Monnet---i.e., a Europe with supra- national institutions. Apart from opposition to the Finance Bill, the chief issue which has really united the Conservative party has been immigra- tion; yet even here the unity is more superficial than real. There are those--probably a minority —who regard the control of immigration as a disagreeable necessity, and there are others who find that it accords with their own instinctive feelings about racial discrimination and see that it is in addition a useful electoral weapon. Meanwhile, the secrecy in which Mr. Heath's Policy committees work makes it difficult to dis- cover in what direction, if any, the party is moving. It is inconceivable that any other party in this country, except the Communists, would set about reformulating its policies in • such total privacy.

It would seem that the Conservatives have adopted the Crossman (as opposed to the Cros- land) theory of opposition, whereby you simply wait for the government of the day to dig its own grave and trip over its own feet into it. There is no need, according to this theory. for a Policy, and the whole doctrine is epitomised by that little sticker one sees in the back of Jaguars: 'Don't blame me, I voted Conservative.' There are no tigers in those tanks—merely the Poujadist vote of those who proclaim that nothing is their fault.

Meanwhile. it is of course perfectly possible that if the Labour government pursues its present course, this thictrine may work. Mr. Wilson's administration suffers from two built-in disad- vantages, to which it has added a third. First, and hardly surprising after thirteen years in the wilderness, few of the Prime Minister's colleagues have been in office before. It is difficult to be- lieve that they would have made the mistakes or shown the precipitation they have in launch- ing new policies had they had greater or more recent experience. Nor initially can they have

listened with sufficient attention to the advice of their civil servants, partly, no doubt, because it has been fashionable in certain quarters in the Labour party to believe that the civil service is anti-Labour. (A more ludicrous idea has rarely been entertained.) Secondly, they have a very small parliamentary majority. This is a fact which Mr. Wilson has ostentatiously ignored, although it most certainly reflects the very hesitant feel- ings of the country towards his party and his administration. The fact that the Labour vote in 1964 was less than in 1959 is significant, even if the Conservative vote dropped by even more, and the Liberal vote increased. In a democratic country such symptoms of popular feeling are worthy of notice and it may even be that poli- ticians would do well to pay some attention to them. The message of 1964 could be seen quite clearly, despite the distortions that our electoral system creates. What the people wanted was radi- cal. not socialist, change, and it is probable that the kind of programme on which the Liberal party fought the election most closely accorded with their wishes.

What, then, in this very tricky situation was the right policy for the Liberal party to pursue? It could hardly ignore the fact that by post- poning the election to the last possible moment. and to the time of the year when the country is generally most vulnerable economically--and more particularly so when we were running an unusually large trading deficit--the Conservative government took one of those risks which can only be justified in politics by success. It failed, and many Liberals felt with other people in the country that although we did not agree with the immediate measures taken by the Government to deal with the crisis, that it should be given the benefit of the doubt. We certainly did not feel it necessary to say with Mr. Maudling that Labour had inherited our remedies.

Meanwhile, the Government's position has be- come more precarious. As time passes and its policies develop, its responsibility for what hap- pens becomes more direct and inescapable; and in addition its attitudes to current events more

'Which party, in your opinion, has the lead in procedural tactics?'

obvious. It has shown a curious mixture of bluff, bravado, opportunism and sheer obstinacy. Bluff over steel, which would seem to have been called; bravado over the Finance Bill, which has pro- duced a record number of amendments; oppor- tunism over the Commonwealth, which has demonstrated beyond all possible doubt that it is not a cohesive political instrument; and ob- stinacy over Europe. But in addition the local elections and the opinion polls, though the latter diverge widely, show a marked drop in the Government's popularity. And the polls, whether you like it or not, are under present circum- stances a key factor. So long as Labour had a lead of 8 per cent, then the Conservatives did not wish to defeat the Government in the House of Commons and, indeed, as their voting record shows, they did not try to. Directly it dropped below 5 per cent in one poll and put the Con- servatives ahead in the other, an adverse vote in the House of Commons or, still more, an accident or mortality in the Labour party became a matter of great national significance. The Liberal posi- tion becomes under such circumstances crucial, no matter how much Mr. Macleod may resent it, nor how often Mr. Wilson may pledge himself (with adequate provisos) not to have an election this year. In these matters the Prime Minister is not almighty.

Hence Mr. Grimonds statement on where the Liberals stand. Why it should have surprised anyone is beyond my comprehension. If the Government found itself in difficulties through any of the eventualities I have mentioned, the country should know how the Liberal party would act. Had Mr. Wilson approached the Liberals after the election he would have re- ceived much the same reply, and had he been prepared to act on the matters where we are in agreement he would not only have had plenty to do, but he might also have been assured of four full years in office, which is the minimum in which a reforming government can show its paces. He preferred not to, and this is the third of the disadvantages from which the present Government suffers, and which differs from the others in that it was self-imposed. Meanwhile, the Liberal party has made its position clear. It sees itself as a radical alternative to Conser- vatism and is prepared to support a government which pursues policies with which it agrees: but not those with which it disagrees. This has been criticised for being insufficiently precise on the one hand and described as an offer of coalition on the other. To be precise in these matters is impossible, because no one knows precisely how the Government will play its hand or what events are in store for it. To call it an 'offer' of coalition is simply to apply a false label to the goods which the Guardian was offering for sale. They should be hauled before the Consumers' Council.

But by far the most mysterious bit of advice the Liberals have been offered is that they should steer a course parallel to the Government's. Though newspapers can produce colour supple- ments parallel to that of the Sunday Times, this manoeuvre is impossible for a political party for the simple reason that whereas people buy several newspapers they only vote for one party. It is up to a political party to make its position clear both to the people and to the other parties. This is precisely what Mr. Orimond has done.