Political Commentary
Boring, and bad for Britain
Patrick Cosg rave
Until this week I have never seen—and nobody can recall—a Budget speech delivered to an emptying chamber and to a steadily emptying Press Gallery. I would like to think that those who chose to vanish before the Chancellor sat down on Tuesday were clever folk, who descried the idiocy of his economic policy. Not so: those who left were among the increasing number who find Mr Healey a bore. The Chancellor does go on; and on; and on. It has always been difficult to understand Mr Healey's reputation as a man of intellect. True, when he was Secretary of State for Defence he did brilliant imitations of Mr Wilson—for the delectation of his civil servants. True, he shook his beetle brows at the unfortunate soldiers whose role in the Far East he had sworn to defend to the point of resignation —when he was telling them he had changed his mind. And true, he likes telling dons how clever he is. But the only really formidable thing about him is his manner.
I think it possible that Mr Healey may yet drive me to a position that I once thought I could never conceivably adopt— that of supporting the idea that Parliament should vote on something that has not been announced to it. After all, it could hardly have mattered less, from the point of view of interest or grace or style, whether Mr Healey actually spoke the words written for him last Tuesday, or simply distributed sheets on which the eighteen thousand words were printed. The one brief moment when there was something that was funny (the little bit about pipe tobacco) took the Chancellor aback, and he failed to see the point of a crack about benefits for retired Prime Ministers. If Mr Callaghan, recalling his own wretched time as Chancellor, feared that he might be overshadowed by Mr Healey from the moment of appointment as Prime Minister, he can relax. Even he was better than this.
Never before has a Chancellor told the House of Commons and the country that an important part of his Budget proposals may or may not be implemented, depending on what a handful of citizens think of them. 'Taxation without representation', as Mrs Thatcher called Mr Healey's statement that he would introduce tax reliefs for all citizens if some citizens chose to behave in a certain way. Mr Callaghan shambled enough, in all conscience, during his own Budget speeches; but he never made himself as abject as that.
But another surrender in the Budget speech was even more curious. For nearly an hour, in that crushing monotone, the Chancellor delivered what used to be called his judgment—the general view he takes of the way things are going for the economy.
Stripped of verbiage, what he said was that things would get better if world conditions got better. He offered little if anything by way of action on the part of the British government to take advantage of world trading conditions; to wrest benefit from our membership of the EEC; to build on anything gained as a result of the forebearance of the TUC. Save for one thing. He did say that selective import controls should not be ruled out, though he thought, of course, that general controls were anathema.
Now if you take a situation in which Chancellor introduces a complicated Budget which nonetheless offers no major new elements in economic strategy in spite of roaring inflation and rising unemployment; if a central part of that Budget's provisions are to be handed over for decision to an outside body; if the Chancellor clearly has no idea where to go from here; and if he does not wholly rule out something which that powerful outside body cherishes, what is the likely result ?
Why—to spell it out—the likely result is a later Budget, in which the thing that the powerful outside body is keen on is done. So I have every confidence in predicting that, at whatever cost to our international commitments and treaties, we will have import controls by the autumn—because the TUC insists on them.
I understand that, in a roundabout way, the idea has been put to Mr Roy Jenkins that he might become President of the European Commission ; and that he is brooding on the matter. I must say that I sympathise with him. Mr Jenkins has never been one of my heroes, but as a Chancellor he had sense, style and some independence. True, it was he who said that the reform of the law on industrial relations was central to his economic strategy, and subsided with no more than a private whimper when the government of which he was a member abandoned the attempt to reform the law on industrial relations. But even in defeat he showed a measure of grace.
Lord Barber was not in the Chamber on Tuesday—and he was certainly a Chancel' lor who did a number of wicked things. But had he been present he would doubtless have recalled, with a certain feeling of how things have declined, that his Budget speeches at least showed wit. Indeed, to be no less than fair to him, they were looked forward to as coups de theatre of the highest order. Mr Maudling was present, however, and would have been less than human had he not recalled his own time as Chancellor, when there was a grand sweep about the whole business. Never mind, for the moment, that fair and serious criticisms cal be made of the financial records of both men: more severe criticisms can be made of Mr Healey, and he is tedious to boot.
So we must buckle down to facing the fact that Parliament between now and the next general election is going to be, from the Government side at least, a pretty dull and futile place. Mr Callaghan's first session of Question Time as Prime Minister —which preceded the Chancellor's marathon—indicated, as some of us feared, that he is going to give free rein to that vaguelY humorous pomposity which is the Main part of his character; and that he is going to answer questions with a good deal less directness than Mr Wilson. It is, as I have suggested, pretty clear that we shall have another Budget, and import controls, bY the autumn. And by then we shall all certainly be regretting the departure of that splendidly robust, direct, strong-minded fellow Harold Wilson, who left the shoP in charge of such pathetic drifters.
The trouble is that TUC conferences are even more boring than Mr Healey. There the regimented comrades sit, voting exactly as they are told, and not receiving their expenses unless they turn up in their places, washed behind the ears, shiny suits carefullY pressed, dutifully to applaud their masters. The digression is not irrelevant, for not onlY did Mr Healey say that we could all have tax reliefs only if the TUC let us, but he also said that 'A voluntary policy for incomes !s the only real answer to inflation'. This means that we can beat inflation only if Mr Jones and Mr Scanlon and their supporters feel like doing it. So, given the Chancellor s abdication, the scene of conflict shifts to the TUC. As Mr Heath's experience has alreadY shown, however, incomes policies, wheth.er successful or not, have little to do with irl" flation. In consequence of this even the battle within the TUC—over whether or not to do what Mr Healey would like—Is affair of shadows. Mr Healey has intt:°,: duced a complicated set of measures whic", do little if anything to alter the trend 0! government spending, or to reduce 00t‘ steadily increasing overseas obligations.-fIt't unavoidable result is that things will ge very much worse before they get better.
Previous page
