Conservatives

Winning the battle of words

Sam Swerling

The Tory defeat at the last election has at least given the party time to step aside for the moment. It now has the chance to reconsider some of its attitudes on essential policies, and the principles upon which those policies were conceived, and to commence the urgent task of restoring the morale of party workers and supporters throughout the colintry. The tasks that lie immediately ahead are Perhaps made less daunting, paradoxically, by the knowledge that the Labour Party has embarked upon a programme more collectivist and ideologically-oriented in the direction of Pure socialism than any of its predecessor administrations. This reflects not merely the leftward drift in the Labour Party but the Perceptible shifting to the left tof the centre of Political gravity over the past few years — and the accompanying Tory shift with it, which Sir Keith Joseph has recently so frankly characterised as the pursuit of semi-socialism.

Thus, as Chancellor Healey plans how best he can make the rich (£3,000 a year, miners Included) squeal by penal taxation to pay for his profligate state-spending schemes, and Wedgwood Benn busies himself on ways of taking the productive capacity of large slices of Industry into public ownership, the delineation of Labour policy unfolds in a way which should afford to the Tories a heaven-sent opportunity of formulating an election programme which can engage the enthusiasm of the people and Provide an attractive and radical alternative to doctrinaire socialism. In the Swinton Journal of autumn 1971 Lord Butler declared that "it is perhaps the very generalised feeling that we are the national Party that has given us our strongest claim on the affections and support of our fellow countryrnen," In the climate of discontent and d!saffection which pervades much of our so r and in the context of a raging inflation Which threatens a social and economic upheaval., and for which the Tories are widely, if unjustifiably, blamed we can no longer assume that this generalised feeling is prevalent. Moreover, there is bound to be a widely felt dPosition "to give Labour a chance." And the Labour Party machine appears to be working overtime in striving to represent itself as the natural party of government — the party capa apa ble

ble of avoiding, as it sees it, the errors of Toryism, i.e. of confrontation with organised labour; of failure to curb the profits of big business; of callousness towards the weak and underprivileged; of inability to make manufacturing industry profitable; of presiding over poor export performance and low investment. 'Socialism is seen as the panacea and cure-all of our contagious diseases. , Yet much of this mythology has achieved a measure of acceptance in the country because the Tories seem temporarily to have lost the battle of words in the propaganda war. For • instance there remains a persistent belief among the uncommitted that it was the Tories who sought a head-on collision with the unions and that the Labour Party with its own unique arrangement with organised labour can alone salvage the wreckage, whereas in principle there was little difference between the Industrial Relations Act and the Industrial Relations Bill of Barbara Castle which ended so ignominiously on the scrapheap after the June • 1969 surrender to the big battalions. There is another persistent belief that Tory housing policy deliberately set out to force up rents to meet increased costs whereas the system of rebates and allowances in the Housing Finance Act largely offset rent increases for those less well off, and extended the system of protection to unfurnished tenancies provided by local authorities as well as to the private sector protection under Labour's 1965 Rent Act. Again, it is widely supposed that Labour is the party of compassion and that its programme for the social services far outstripped in generosity anything which the Tories offered. This is palpably untrue. The provision of six new cash benefits and the pensions record of the last government were among its most encouraging features and testimony of its claim to be a party of compassion.

Despite this, in a mass democracy the power of communication is all-important and at the last election the Tories came out worst and the Liberals whose policies on housing, industrial relations and social services are no clearer now than they were then were able to cream off the vote of the apathetic and those contemptuous of the whole system.

The central question of the economy is now beginning to be the subject of discussion in all areas of the party, from the shadow Cabinet to the smallest CPC constituency committee. All the old conundrums need to be re-exa

mined; whether a reduction in the rate of increase of money supply with consequences of substantially increased unemployment and :severe dislocation of business and industry

will dampen demand and set back hopes for a decent rate of growth; whether this course will have only a marginal effect on inflation until the monopoly power of the larger unions such as the AUEW, T& GWU and NUM is drastically curbed either (preferably) by voluntary action or enforcement; how best to cope with the possibility of slump and recession. All these problems are deserving of a most critical and detailed analysis if only because if we get the wrong answers the democratic process may be incapable of repairing the damage.

Many Tories must feel bitterly disappointed at the acquiescence of the Shadow Cabinet in the repeal of the Industrial Relations Act. The determination of Mr Scanlon's engineering 'union in refusing to defend itself before the Industrial Court, the emotional sympathy for the five dockers imprisoned for contempt, and the concerted attack by the left on the Act, its institutions and overall purpose has been rather ineffectually countered by the Tories. The image of the Act as a medium for "union 'bashing" has simply not been dispelled.

Although the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act re-enacts some provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, particularly the sections on unfair dismissal, there can be little disagreement with Mr David Wood of the Times, in an article on July 8: "If the TUC had drafted the measure itself it could not have been better served. It will go into the statute book as a standing memorial to the contemporary limitations of government authority when confronted with the industrial might of the trade unions." Admittedly, the Tories fought hard to secure some amendments and five were made in the House of Lords, but Labour has pledged to get rid of these amend

ments if re-elected in an Employment Protection Bill. No less galling for the Tories would be an extension of picketing rights. Mr Foot has threatened a separate Bill providing "a right for pickets to communicate with the occupant of vehicles so as peacefully to persuade him to work or to abstain from working" (Hansard March 22, col. 1488). The effect of such a measure is that pickets could have the power on the highway greater than those enjoyed by

the police. There are other aspects of our national life which are worrying an increasing number of ordinary people and which need to be tackled in determined fashion. Violence, truancy and indiscipline in schools, often caused by sheer boredom, could be reduced by lowering the school age to fifteen for those who wish to leave at that age. The growth of urban guerrilla movements in western Europe, with our own all too familiar example of the IRA, should be met by the return of the death penalty for sabotage and terrorist activities. Other deve

lopments might be an international agreement outlawing all 'front' organisations which exist to support and succour terrorism, and an in

creased defence budget to meet the growing threat of the enemies within.

Tories might also challenge more readily some fashionable beliefs, such as the hypocrisy of a socialism which can justify restrictions on freedom of choice and expression through Race Relations legislation yet regard increased legal controls over pornography as an unwarranted intervention of the state upon individual freelay greater emphasis on service and obligation as a corollary to our basic rights and freedoms. Sam Swerling, member of the executive council of the Monday Club and the Society of Conservative Lawyers, is to contest Nottingham East at the next election.