Is there a middle ground?
Jo Grimond
'Forward by the Right'. 'A Better Tomorrow'. And now Face the Future* (haven't we had this title before somewhere?) — all manifestoes of all parties aspire to sound a new, vibrant, inspiring note and all end up sounding flat and much the same. Politicians are better at facing the future than the present. What we need is someone who will get inflation under control and enliven industry now. As the Economist has pointed out, much of the talk about a Social Democratic party is not even talk about today, it is yearning for a better yesterday. Face the Future sets out a respectable, though some may think unexciting, programme. It favours decentralisation, an incomes policy ('sustainable over the mini-. mum time-scale of a four to five year Parliament'), encouragement to co operatives and the mixed economy, mixed much as at present. It follows the orthodox line on parliamentary control, stresses the value of select committees and wants more help for opposition MPs possibly provided by the Civil Service. It rightly resurrects the Layfield Report on local goVernment, urging reconciliation of local government finance. It is cautious on defence and sensibly does not include chapters on a British foreign policy but on international socialism. As it is a fairly weighty tome running to 542 pages, I can do no more than summarise a few of its conclusions and suggestions. Its tone is reasonable and certainly free from party prejudice. Indeed Dr Owen now speaks of the 'Labour Party' as though he was no longer a member. As I know to my cost it is impossible for a politician to write a book without having it Judged and found wanting in reference to the most immediate and crude political battles. III wrote a book about chess, some reviewer is certain to condemn it as unlikely to win votes for the Liberal Party. Dr Owen is entitled to ask that his book be judged on its own merit. But as he is publishing it at the height of public curiosity about a new Party, he no doubt intends it as the agenda for such a party. As such it is most welcome. We need such an agenda to remove discussion of the new party from speculation on existent news about a non-existent entity whose political aims were undefined. Of late it has seemed that, if Shirley Williams said the world was round, she would rate a headline.
In this context, the first thing that must be said is that it is in almost complete agreement with the current official policy of the iberal Party. There is nothing in it which should lead to any irreconcilable clash with Puce the Future David Owen (Jonathan Cape £12.50) David Steel's 'ten points'. If the Social Democrats do not join the Liberal Party, they may be condemned for putting rather foolish pride before serious politics. Christopher Mayhew and Aubrey Jones who have had distinguished careers in the parties have already joined the Liberal Party. Aubrey Jones in his pamphlet, 'The Reform of Pay Determination', has made a contribution to the consideration • of an incomes policy which is deeper than anything in this book.
The next thing to be said is that it iS astonishing that less than three years ago, Dr Owen was Foreign Secretary in a Labour government. Many of the errors he denounces — too much bureaucracy and centralisation, indeed state socialism itself — have been the hallmarks of that party for a long time. It is indeed strange that the issue on which he seems to be leaving the party is how it elects its leader. If Labour MPs had been given 50 per cent of the electoral college or perhaps even 70 per cent would he remain in the party? The trades union block vote is of course an undemocratic absurdity, but it has been around for along time. I do not remember many fierce attacks upon it from the Right when it favoured them.
You may say that this issue was the straw which broke the ' camel's back. . But the camel showed little sign of wilting. Even I, and many others with a louder voice, have been preaching co-operation, decentralisation, the importance of freedom, the danger from bureaucratic attitudes for a long time and on the whole got more support from leading Tories than Socialists. Mr Sandelson has been the most courageously restive camel in the Labour menagerie. A new social democratic group is already in the field. Mr Haseler has made what up to now is the most pungent criticism of his old party. Even enthusiastic advocates of a centre party surely do not believe that you need three of them. There may be rejoicing over the Prodigal Son, but those asked to go on an arduous political adventure with him must look at the record and at what has happened while the Prodigal was among the fleshpots.
I strongly believe that there is a need for a new departure in British politics. I strongly believe, too, that British politicians and commentators will do possibly irreparable harm to the country if, by succumbing to personal jealousy, vanity or simply the temptatioo to raise a snigger, they sabotage all attempts at such a departure. But the threats to freedom, to a satisfactory democracy and to our economy — notably the threat of inflation — are such that I doubt if semi-dirigiste policies, palliatives to state socialism, are enough. I doubt in fact if that old political nirvana, the middle ground, is any longer there to occupy. If we are to build a new political programme based on co-operation, community development and a free market, the Tories, if they move with determination, could probably pre-empt us. After all, they have, or could, become the radical element' in our politics. For tackling some of the chief obstacles, such as the size of the state sector, the intractability of the nationalised industries and the trade unions, the Social Democrats are in an even worse posture than the Conservatives. Mrs Williams, when a Minister, actually stood on a picket line at Grunwick.
I regret that the Liberal Party has not Made more use of the new thought which now abounds on industrial organisation, the market and the local community. Mr Steel has, 'however, responded effectively and helpfully to the call for a centre party. The Liberal Party may however be too egalita-. rian and humble for Social Democrats. I applaud Dr Owen's adherence to the ranks Of the anti-corporatists: but I still believe that his colleagues, if not he himself, are thinking of the days of Gaitskell. However, this book should at least cement the Social Democrats to the Liberal Party and for those of us who think this is not in itself enough, let us see just where friendly disagreement. lies. If the author, who has been the most outspoken and probably politically effective of the movement, remains in the Labour Party, as I suspect may happen, he risks being written off as a contender for political leadership, which would be a pity. There is now no excuse for further delay. Oh why are we waiting to know what the gang of 4 or 13 are going to do next?
Previous page
