'olitical Commentary
Mac Wilsonism
By ALAN WATKINS
WITH every week that passes, Mr. Harold Wilson reminds one more and more of Harold Macmillan in his last phase. There ' the same reluctance to admit that a mistake las been made, the same rather forced uncon- ern, the same reliance on television appear- 'ices at home and diplomatic confrontations 'broad. And recently he has adopted yet an- )ther Macmillan device: he has blamed the ournalists. In Mr. Macmillan's famous words on Herlin, he believes that it is all got up by the )ress. Nor is Mr. Wilson alone. Ministers have eaeted to recent newspaper comment in exactly he same way as their Conservative predecessors in 1962-3. They are shacked and astonished AM some writers not only seem to believe that ithe Government is doing badly but actually say so. [knee Mr. John Harris has been appointed to fil the same melancholy function as did Mr. "Illiam Deedes after the Tory disasters of 1962. Yet can these journalists really believe what c'hey write? Impossible, say the politicians. 'early some more sinister influences must be `t! work. In the Macmillan period there was no ,Illieulty in identifying the culprit. He was "'Gam Vassal!, assisted by the Lord Chief ,Ilstice, Lord Parker, and by Lord Radcliffe. .()Ilowing the Vassal! Tribunal and the imprison- `1)Fnt of two journalists, Fleet Street was deter- 'fled to get its revenge, which it duly did. Today, 'Inwever, there is no William Vassall visible on he horizon, nor is there a Profumo. Other ex- Planations must be sought for the press's attitude.
Mrs. Lena Jeger, writing in the Guardian. 44s no doubt as to the answer. The trouble is, he says, that all the formerly friendly journalists `ire now working for the Government. So, accord- ng to Mrs. Jeger, 'they sit in ministries like tnnuchs and at their one-time friendly desks .lever new young men are doing what they are tOld.' This is an argument which is vulnerable °n several grounds. For one thing, most of the LIPPosedly well-disposed journalists have been `IssIsting the Government since last October, and the press has certainly not been unfriendly for the whole of that period. More important, by means all the journalists who went into ;1'vernment Fvviee -- and there are not really 's!rY many of them—were unqualified admirers ;)1 the Labour party (a fact which seems to have missed not only by Mrs. Jeger but also ' Professor Max Beloff).
\ I do not w.int to make too heavy weather of Jew's explanation I am not even sure 1,01 seriously she intends it to be taken—but
'here is a further point to be made. This is that
t Is always difficult to convince left-wingers that rnalists have any freedom at all. This left- attitude is perfectly natural. For obvious "ustorical reasons, latish publications have had be much more rigidly controlled propaganda ntgans than their equivalents on the right. It is
well known that there-is much more suppression, and much more editorial direction, on news- papers of the left than on those of the right.
However, there are deeper resemblances be- tween Mr. Wilson and Mr. Macmillan than the view which they and their supporters take of the press. Mr. Macmillan had Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, whom he sacrificed. Mr. Wilson has Mr. George Brown, whom he has not yet sacrificed, but whose head is conveniently placed for the chopper.
Again, there is the attitude which both men have towards their own parties. Mr. Macmillan despised the bulk of his supporters, and took every opportunity of humiliating them. He pulled the wool over their eyes on Africa and on the Common Market. 'You can get away with any- thing,' he was fond of remarking, 'provided you are wearing a Brigade tie.' As with Mr. Mac- millan, so with Mr. Wilson. What the Conserva- tive right was to Mr. Macmillan, the Labour left is to Mr. Wilson. He has pulled the wool over their eyes on the nuclear deterrent, on Vietnam, on the Dominican Republic and on support for the United Nations. 'You can get away with anything,' Mr. Wilson might justly say, 'provided you talk with a Yorkshire accent and mention Nye Bevan from time to time.'
When he took office, Mr. Macmillan was seen by the mass of the Conservative party as an altogether sounder and more reliable figure than Mr. R. A. Butler. In fact, Mr. Butler was more traditionally inclined than Mr. Macmillan. Similarly Mr. Wilson was seen by the bulk of Labour MPs as well to the left of Hugh Gaitskell or Mr. Brown. In reality he was a politician of much less doctrinaire views--and that is put- ting the matter as politely as it can be. Both men, in short, owed their support to -a mistaken view of where they really stood politically.
And, if one looks more closely at. their political traits, the resemblances are again apparent. It is surely significant that both of them have very few close political friends. Mr. Macmillan sought companionship in his family or with party supporters who were not MPs. Mr. Wilson has exactly the same habits. Partly owing to these characteristics, he has no firm base of support inside the Labour party. The support that he has is much more diffused. Whether this makes his position stronger or weaker is a matter for argument. Mr. Macmillan was in a similar situation in 1963, and managed to survive until he was finally struck down by illness. Mr. Wilson's healai is believed to be excellent.
Mr. Wilson, it should always be remembered, liked, understood and admired Mr. Macmillan. They were the same kind of politician. They were bookmakers rather than bishops. We need not press a comparison too far. It is enough to say that there is a recognisable style of political leadership which may be called Mac- Wilsonism. This style depends on the free use of gimmicks and on a gullible, or at least a pliant, body of parliamentary supporters. The style did not originate with Mr. Macmillan: Disraeli and Lloyd George were previous, if uncultivated, practitioners. And MacWilsonism will not end with Mr. Wilson.
Previous page
