POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Tory crystal gazing
PETER PATERSON
Amid the rather monotonous cacophony of this general election campaign, certain familiar voices have not been heard, voices which made the politics of the 'fifties and 'sixties what they were and which, given the chance, might even have injected some much-needed grace and style into the 'seven- ties.
Whatever happened, the jaded electors are entitled to ask, to that nice Mr Ray Gunter, whose lilting Welsh condemnation of strikers gave the Labour party so many coatings of moderate veneer when some people still believed that Labour was the strikers' party? What of Mr Patrick Gordon Walker, the Pagliacci-style Foreign Secretary who was unable for such a long time to get into the House of Commons? And Mr Douglas Jay, Sir Stafford Cripps's natural successor, one once thought, and Arthur Bottomley, who stood up so bravely to renegade Smith of Rhodesia and now seems to have disap- peared without trace? Among the Tories, also, some of yesterday's men are apparently missing. When is stalwart old Selwyn Lloyd, the in- ventor of the pay pause, now brutishly translated into pay freeze, going to give us his thoughts? And the inventor of the motorway, Ernest Marples, and aristocratic Lord Salisbury, with his acid comments on his Tory contemporaries (`Mr Aubrey Jones always makes me feel rather common')? Is there some politicians' graveyard where one can browse among the headstones, deriving wisdom from the epitaphs of the second- grade greats, or is all this collective wisdom still being wasted on doltish audiences in draughty church halls in obscure con- stituencies? There is, alas, a political scavenger constantly removing the debris of past policies and personalities from the scene: not a particularly efficient one, it's true, for most of us could nominate the has- beens who are still, incredibly, among us. But, the British people are sentimental towards politicians, as towards comedians, and are willing to endure their perform- ances long after the moment when they have ceased to be funny.
For this reason alone, Mr Harold Wilson will be with us for many years yet, pro- vided—as one fervently hopes—that his health and his credit last out. There is a familiarity about Mr Wilson's style, an endearing, comfortable sameness which con- veys a sense of security to the nation, however loudly the Opposition cries wolf. Not that Mr Wilson, in comic or, indeed, in political terms, is yet past it. He is a wise- cracking, conquering, constantly witty North-country lad, capable of mocking serious attempts to reform him and turning the tables on his more serious-minded ad- versaries. 'What's the trade balance?' one can imagine his saying, 'My pocket money, less the catapult Sir confiscated in school on Wednesday, plus the five bob that soppy old Roger gave me to stay out of the parlour on Friday night.' Mr Wilson will also be younger, as he never ceases to point out to his confidants, when he enters his third term as Prime Minister (a situation he at least certainly takes for granted and which, in view of the polls, one can now scarcely dispute) than most of his modern predecessors when they first achieved office. His mastery of the press and television, his ease in the presence of ordinary electors, his gift for the witty phrase and the inspiration with which he discovers occasions for endearing himself to the ad- mass—all demonstrate that he is at the peak of his profession. The only uneasy question that arises is, what is his profession? As an election winner he has no equal, and possibly tops the league of all-time greats. As a statesman his performance gives rise to doubts.
Even so, the known proclivities of the British people for the familiar could easily fulfil Harold's ambition to make Labour the natural governing party in this country. I used to think—like Mr Khrushchev—that if revolutionary communism ever came to Bri- tain it would employ the Conservative party as its political arm and the Times would be the equivalent of Pravda. If Mr K were still active, I believe he would change his mind in favour of the Labour party and the Daily Mirror. That is one measure of Mr Wilson's success and Mr Heath's failure. There is now, in my view, more possibility of Mr Wilson handing over, or being forced out in favour of some rival, and the Labour party remaining in power, than there is of the Tories resuming their traditional position.
Which brings us to the unhappy Mr Heath. It is only human that our thoughts should leap ahead to the period after 18 June, and to the state of mind the Con- servatives will then be in. There is a myth, carefully fostered by the Labour party, that the Tories are ruthless with their unsuc- cessful leaders, that the knives will be out for Mr Heath in line with this tradition, that he will be out before his feet even touch post- election ground. It is difficult to find chapter and verse for such prophecies in modern Conservative history. Sir Alec, Mr Heath's predecessor, was not thrown out but gracefully withdrew in face of unassailable evidence that he was not the right man for the job. That Mr Heath followed him, and is often unfavourably compared, is the fault of those Tory MPS who mistakenly saw him as a Conservative Wilson—the most bizarre mistake since Red Riding Hood mistook the wolf for her grandmother. Mr Macmillan had had a splendid run, and has enriched our lives in his retirement with his autobiography. And, without going too far into the past, Neville Chamberlain went because the country, rather than the Con- servative party, wanted him to go.
If Mr Heath wants to stay, no doubt he will find sufficient support in the Con- servative party in Parliament to permit him to do so. If the election is close, it will be very difficult for the Tories to do otherwise than to accept his continued tenure. If there is a landslide, then the pressure for his
removal will come from the constituency associations, via the National Union of Con- servative and Unionist Associations. But for Mr Heath to be deposed in this way, rather than by use of Mr Humphry Berkeley's elec- toral procedure among Conservative MPS, must raise the spectre of Powellism. That is why we hear so much talk of Christopher Soames coming back from the Paris Em- bassy to lead the Tory party, and of Mr Heath's voluntary retirement. The symbol of Churchillism is to exorcise the devil of Powellism. The question is, how long could the Parliamentary Conservatives withstand the pressure of the disappointed extra- Parliamentary Tories? Mr Soames is a very nice man, but my recollection of his performances as Minister of Agriculture, is that he was hardly an effective dispatch box performer, and that rainmaker-in-chief is hardly a promotion from the comfort and elegance of the Paris embassy.
Again, one is told that if Heath goes, Mr Anthony Barber would also be replaced as chairman of the party by the chief whip in the last Parliament, Mr Willie Whitelaw. Mr Whitelaw is charming, popular, able, and unknown outside the House of Commons, but having spent six years in such an unrewarding role, why should he now opt for similar strain and discomfort, plus publicity, for a further five? Conjecture on these lines, all to no avail if all the polls prove to be wrong, or if Mr Heath becomes Super-Heath in the last days of the election campaign, is necessary if only to demonstrate that options are open to the Tories. Otherwise we are in for a spate of gloomy comment about the future of the two-party system, and the possibility of a left dictatorship in Britain should the Labour party win. There is every likelihood that Labour will win, it seems at this point in the campaign, and that Mr Wilson will be thoroughly unbearable in his post-victory period. But as one extremely shrewd left- wing Labour MP observed to me the other day, 'Harold will be all-powerful, but only for three or four weeks.' A substantial Labour victory, in other words, will also hearten and strengthen the Labour left.
Having watched, somewhat appalled, the progress of the two previous Wilson ad- ministrations, the left will have its talons out this time, and no amount of cajoling and persuasion will prevent their rocking the boat on the port side. If past form is any guide, however, Mr Wilson will be thinking about the next election the moment this one is finished. Any idea that the left, or any other force apart from a world slump or a disastrous earthquake in Britain will deflect him from attempting to turn his party into a Scandinavian-style social-democratic per- manency is a hopeless non-starter.
For a comment on Mr Heath's attempt, we call on one of the Tory party's yesterday's men. The ineffable R. A. Butler, now, of course, Lord Butler of Trinity, was in the chair at a gathering in Cambridge, summoned some long time before to welcome Edward Heath, the day after Mr Wilson's announcement that the election would be held on 18 June. After some preliminaries, Lord Butler introduced Mr Heath as The man who is going to lead the Tory party. ...' and the following cakulated pause prepared his audience for a Butlerism, `... for many years to come.' If the inference was that Mr Heath would lose the election, the percipient Lord Butler was probably right. If he thought Mr Heath would survive the debacle as leader, his retirement from active politics is probably beginning to tell.
Previous page
