30 OCTOBER 1964, Page 9

And By Opposing End Them?

By ANGUS MAUDE, MP

TT has been widely observed that Mr. Wilson's

is a singularly inexperienced Government. It has not so far been remarked that, by the same token, the Conservative Party in the Commons is equally inexperienced in the business of Opposition.

Of the members of the last Cabinet who are still in the House, three have never been in Oppo- sition at all. (Nor, incidentally, has the new Conservative Chief Whip.) Eight more, including the Leader of the Opposition and Messrs. Maud- ling and Heath, experienced it for no more than eighteen months in 1950-51. Seven were in Oppo- sition from 1945 to 1951, and only one (Mr.

Butler) sat in the Commons from 1929 to 1931.

Moreover, their experiences in Opposition are unlikely to be more than marginally relevant to the problems that will face them in the next year or two. While 1945 provided a precedent for much-needed rethinking of policies, the parlia- mentary situation was clearly very different from what it is now.

So—and this cannot be emphasised too strongly —was the situation of 1950-51. Despite the super- ficial similarity of majorities, there was one essential difference between the result of the 1950 election and that of 1964. In 1950 the Conser- vatives gained nearly one hundred seats: in 1964 they lost more than fifty. In 1950 the `time for a change' feeling was running their way; the Labour Party, its stock-in-trade of policies ob- viously exhausted, was patently nearing the end of its run. All that remained to be done (to change the metaphor still further) was to hammer it into the ground. It could be mercilessly attacked, and subjected to all the tricks of the Parliamentary trade, without any risk of its at- tracting much sympathy from an electorate that was clearly tired of it.

Today, and for a period ahead which will not be less than six months and might be as long

as two years, the situation is, very different. More- over, it is the Labour Government that now looks new,' despite the proportion of elderly deadbeats on its front bench.

What, then, should be the strategy and tactics of the Conservative Opposition in the months ahead?

Constitutionally, a • party in Opposition has three functions. To keep a watchful eye on the country's welfare and progress, alert to point out the Government's errors of commission and omission. To improve government legislation on its way through Parliament, reserving outright opposition for measures strongly held to be wrong in principle or against the public interest. Finally, to evolve and propound distinctive policies which will make it acceptable to the country as an alternative government.

Every party in Opposition must believe, if it has faith in itself, that it could govern better than the current administration and that the country would be better off for an 'early change. However, its efforts to engineer this change and, above all, their timing, must .be the subject of exact calculation. It is obviously bad tactics, by defeating the Government in the House or by obstructing its business, to give it an excuse to go to the country at a moment when it can win another election.

The Opposition must therefore be in close touch with the feeling of the electorate, as much through its party machine in the country and its MPs' visits to their constituencies as through the opinion polls and by-election results. When the Government's position in the country appears strong, the parliamentary Opposition must— without conceding any point of principle—walk with considerable delicacy. It must do all it can, through the skilful presentation of constructive policies of its own as well as by anti-government propaganda, to improve its standing in the coun- try. When it feels itself to be, beyond all doubt, in a dominant position, it can set confidently about the business,of forcing the Government out of officeJ Applying these principles to the present posi- tion of the Conservative Party, we find ourselves with one or two basic questions to be answered at the outset. How urgently desirable is it, in the interests of the country, to get rid of the Labour Government as quickly as possible? Are there any conceivable benefits that might accrue to the country (as distinct from the Conservative Party) as a result of a period of Labour rule? If so, how do they weigh in the balance against the possible damage?

Obviously • these are difficult questions to answer now, and they will probably not become much easier when we have heard the Queen's Speech next week. Yet some attempt must be made to answer them if an effective Opposition strategy is to be planned at the outset.

We should, I think, discount the conviction of some simple Tory souls that the Labour Government is bound to make a muck of things, and should therefore be allowed to get on and

do it, to ensure another ten years of Conser- vative government. Not just because I find it hard to reconcile an economic crisis with the public interest, but because I cannot yet regard it as absolutely certain that Mr. Wilson will make a muck of things. True, it is hard to see how he can avoid it, given the team he has chosen and his excessive confidence in his own ability. Nevertheless, his Government might, for all the fine talk, potter along doing absolutely nothing of any real significance. In which case it could probably potter for some time.

If I am right, then it is possible to construct some sort of schedule of the possible damage that might accrue. One would expect an acceler- ated, but still fairly gradual, wage inflation, making our exports even less competitive, with a balance-of-payments deficit becoming both larger and more chronic. Government policies would probably become steadily more restrictive and protectionist, with Mr. Wilson sounding every week even more like Stafford Cripps than he did in his television exhortation last Monday.

In such circumstances, it would be hard for the Conservatives to propound any remedies that would sound startlingly new, since the alternative policies would be those the Conservatives them- selves put forward at the last election—namely, to accelerate modernisation and to enforce com- petition and the abolition of restrictive practices. But they would sound more convincing as time went on, and the Labour Government would finally go out with both a whimper and a bang. The whole process would probably take not less than a year, and could stretch out to two years.

On the other hand, let us assume that Mr. Wilson does not repeat Lord Attlee's mistake of 1950, but decides to press on with his more con- troversial proposals and dare the Opposition to stop him. Without another Parliament Act, which I doubt if he could get through in time, he cannot nationalise steel in less than two years; even if he did, I suspect the method chosen this time will be one that will make 'unscrambling' fairly easy. The nationalisation of building de- velopment rights would probably not begin to reduce the rate of house-building appreciably for about two years (although other socialist

measures, such as rent re-control and building licences, might dry up the flow sooner); but it

would certainly cause serious trouble in the year or two after that, even with a change of govern- ment. Labour could also gravely harm our de- fences in the long run, although the effect would

probably be slight while the V-bombers remain in service.

Thus the new Government—whatever it does or does not do—can cause a deal -of long-term damage, but might not do much perceptible harm for at least a year, and possibly two. The case for trying to turn them out at once is thus not very strong, even if this were possible.

On the other hand, what are the chances that the Government might actually do something useful—especially something radical that the Conservatives might have found it difficult to do themselves? Apart from the abolition of capital punishment, it is not easy to be optimistic. Never- theless, we should not overlook the idea.

Law reform is a possibility, although it is a slow business—and in any case, in my experience, these talked-up jobs seldom come to much. But just suppose that the Government did actually manage to persuade the trade unions not only to accept a viable incomes policy, but to acceler- ate the removal of restrictive practices. Mind you, it seems excessively unlikely, particularly the bit about restrictive practices. Nevertheless, while the possibility still exists, the Government must clearly be given the chance, despite the extreme caginess of Mr. Woodcock's current utterances.

The faint outlines of an Opposition strategy now begin to appear. In general, the Government must be given a probationary period of at least six months. Conservatives must resign themselves. to the possibility that events may not offer them any decisive advantage for at least a year, and they should make plans for the possibility of a two-year stint. Of course, the whole works might fall apart suddenly and very rapidly, in which case the Opposition must be poised to take ad- vantage of the opportunities offered.

In the meantime, such measures as steel nationalisation and the Land Commission must be fought all the way, together with any attempt to do something really silly about the nuclear deterrent. Grammar schools are, alas, another probable battlefield. But the Government should not merely be supported in any sensible attempts to modernise and de-restrict, it should be• con- tinually encouraged, goaded and even mocked into living up to its high-flown talk. Railways May be a test case.

All this will have to be played by one ear, with the other pressed firmly to the electoral ground. But, of course, none of it will succeed without the evolution and impressive presenta- tion of new ideas and policies. To evolve them in opposition is not very difficult for the modern Conservative Party, nor do I expect the leader- ship to be unreceptive—except perhaps on one issue, and that among the most important. We must come to the next election with a clear and firm policy on the trade unions.

The other most obvious fields in which new ground must be broken are the recasting of the social-insurance system, the reform of taxation and local government finance. We are already behind our proper schedules here. Land is clearly more difficult, but there is some scope in amenity planning and in agriculture. A European policy is vital.

We have all known, of course, that a break for rethinking and recharging of batteries would do us good. Men who have been in office for five years, let alone for thirteen, need a rest. But clearly certain lessons need to be learned. We have got to make an all-out effort to recap- ture the interest of the young.

Tactics in Parliament need not detain us too long. We have already noted that harrying will not pay unless and until the Government is near to death and only needs dispatching. All-night sittings and similar larks by the Opposition are nearly always silly and impress nobody.

Two things above all. It must never be for- gotten that the Commons provide the origin of most political stories in the press, and that what happens there is often blown up out of propor- tion. Secondly, particular Ministers should not be singled out for attack too soon. The best targets will show themselves in time.

A high degree of discipline among Tory back- benchers will be essential, but it will not be too

easy to secure—particularly with issues like Southern Rhodesia coming up. Narrow majorities provide a discipline of their own; but they do increase the effectiveness of well-organised back- bench rebellion. This may sometimes drive a lethargic leadership into useful action, but it can . equally force energetic leaders to compromise with reaction.

It will be necessary to give the utmost overt encouragement to initiative and new ideas; but at the same time an impression of disunity could be disastrous. The new Chief Whip will need to handle his team with a fairly light touch, and, above all, to make sure that their leaders take them fully into their confidence at the earliest possible stage on all controversial matters.

Only one more thing remains to be said. We shall have to keep a wary eye on the progress of the Liberals, shunning any suggestion of an electoral deal, but alert for the possible moment when they begin to make appreciable inroads into Labour support in the country. If this moment comes (as it may), and if Conservatives handle the situation right, then we may now be living under the last Socialist Government of Britain.