THE MARGINA LS-1

The Battle for East Anglia

By J. W. M. THOMPSON

EAST ANGLIA teems with marginal seats: at least half of the constituencies there, eight out of sixteen, will change from Conservative to Labour if the current opinion-poll findings accurately predict the swing. Yet the real point about this region is not that it is politically ex- plosive, but that it is undergoing a social up- heaval. As you drive along the windswept roads, the scene often resembles a battlefield. A land- scape which has mellowed slowly through many generations is being obliterated; the ancient trees and hedgerows which gave the land an arcadian glow are being rooted ont like weeds. Big-scale, industrialised agriculture is reshaping the farm- ing counties with a heavy hand. Simultaneously, the social system of the region has been shoved into a state of fluidity and change. The new agriculture needs fewer and fewer men. Fresh occupations have to be found, and massive im- migration from London is in progress or in prospect. After being perhaps the least-changing of English regions, East Anglia is now being steadily transformed.

It is this upheaval which gives East Anglian politics much of their edge. As the traditional labouring population decreases and a new industrial working class expands, a third element is also making itself increasingly apparent in the region : the many thousands of retired couples from London or the Midlands who, looking for quiet homes at cheaper prices than they are used to, have settled in the East Anglian towns and villages.

Much of the unpredictability of the East Anglian seats can be attributed to the constant adjustments in the relative strengths of the different social groups. As an example of the East Anglian political process at work, it would be hard to better South-West Norfolk, which is so chronically marginal that it has never had a majority of more than 500 since 1945. Labour won it in 1955 lit was the only seat in the coun- try which the Tories lost that year) and then, perversely, it went Tory again in 1964 (thus being the only Conservative gain, out of a total of five, which could not be ascribed to coloured immigration or, in the case of South Dorset, the adjusting of a freak by-election result). Mr. Paul Hawkins had a majority of 123 in 1964. With a mational swing even remotely approaching that suggested by the opinion polls, he will have no hope now unless the constituency again mys- teriously votes against the national trend. Or, to put the matter more realistically, unless enough new Tory voters have moved in, and enough Labour voters have moved out, to reinforce the modest advantage enjoyed by a likeable local man with seventeen months' good service at Westminster.

To look at this selected East Anglian specimen more closely: the electorate has increase0, by 870 since 1964, and Mr. Hawkins calculates that perhaps a thousand 'owner-occupiers' have been added to the register, mostly retired people from other parts of the country. ('Owner-occupier' is still regarded by Tories as indicating at least a strong likelihood of a Tory vote.) At the same time, a smaller, less easily ascertained number have left the land to work elsewhere (and. with at least as much justification, these are regarded as votes lost for Labour). There should, there- fore, be a substantial net gain for the Tories.

In such an extravagantly marginal constitu- ency the postal vote assumes a critical impor- tance. The party organisations hunt down every ailing or aged sympathiser whose suffrage might properly be obtained in this way. At the last two general elections, South-West Norfolk attained the highest percentage of postal voters of any con- stituency in England or Wales: 6.49 per cent in 1959, 5.96 per cent in 1964. Since it is assumed that the postal vote splits three to one in favour of the Tories, its significance,is apparent.

To dwell upon these demographic or organi- sational points is not to belittle the candidates or their policies, but merely to place them in perspective. Mr. Hawkins, an auctioneer, seems a thoroughly nice man, with the best kind of local links; his Labour opponent, Mr. Noel Insley, is equally pleasant, but he is a technical college lecturer and thought by some to be 'too intellectual.' Both make much of their concern at the low wage rates in the area. Unemployment is only 2.4 per cent, so that is not a pressing problem: but low incomes are, with many of the electors taking home little more than £10.a week. It is easy to see why men are happy to throw up agriculture when opportunity offers to earn substantially more in a factory.

The Labour candidate's solution to the 'con- tracting economy' of the constituency is to call for a large intake of overspill population from London, perhaps even a new town, so as to assemble a big labour force for industry. The Conservative candidate opposes this, and argues that any large influx of new population invari- ably harms the established inhabitants, in that the supply of schools, hospitals, roads, and so on, runs well behind the need. But both, in any case, welcome new industries to provide new jobs.

In spite of all the obvious difficulties, the Tories are surprisingly optimistic. They say that they cannot believe the huge swing to Labour shown in the opinion polls exists in their con- stituency—'after all, surely one would know about a big change like that?' It is at any rate possible, given the East Anglian situation, that Mr. Hawkins will manage to hang on in defianse of a national trend. Who knows—perhaps even the prospect of maintaining the local reputation for voting independently will sway a few votes towards him?

If it does, then the same factor may be at work in near-by North Norfolk, which is in the currently extraordinary situation of being widely regarded in the district as a probable Tory gain on March 31. If this does not quite make it unique, it must very nearly do so. Mr. Bert Hazell (an agricultural workers' union official) held the seat in 1964 with a majority cut from 658 to 53. Having gone against the national trend then, North Norfolk might well do so again. The reason, however, is not to be found in any waywardness of the Norfolk in- habitants, but rather in the effects of the same population changes observed in South-West Norfolk—a shrinking agricultural labour force, and an influx of retired residents from elsewhere. But the effect is enhanced here because, along this coastal strip extending from Holkham in the west to beyond Cromer in the east, new industry is discouraged by the planners. The Tories have a bustling new candidate, Mr. Ralph

Howell, who farms in South-West Norfolk and who graduated politically in that hard-fought constituency: and Mr. Howell might prove to be the Little Jack Homer of the 1966 election.

Next-door King's Lynn is equally marginal but different. Mr. Derek Page is defending the majority of 104 by which he captured the seat for Labour in 1964. He is probably rather more secure than the figure suggests, even in chancy East Anglia. In his spell as the Member he has dazzled the constituency with a pyrotechnic dis- play of public-relations activity; the evolution of King's Lynn and the growth of industry there are also likely to favour him. Mr. Denys Bullard, trying to win back the seat for the Tories, ought to pick up some new support from the increased electorate at places like Hunstanton; it is rather awkward for him, however, that a good deal of horticulture is sited on the fens west of King's Lynn. Horticulturalists notori- ously take fright at the thought of entering the Common Market.

All the constituencies so far examined provide straight Tory-Labour contests. In East Anglia the presence of a Liberal candidate powerfully affects the outlook, although he is never expected to win. 'The Labour vote here,' one Labour candi- date remarked, 'is in no sense a Socialist vote. It's a Liberal. Radical, reformist vote.' Naturally, Liberals here tend to draw most support from the left, so that if, for example, a Liberal were to fight at King's Lynn, the Tory chances would be much brighter.

The conclusion is generally true. At South Norfolk, the presence of a Liberal means that Labour has a reduced chance of unseating Mr. John Hill, the sitting Tory, although Mr. Hill's .majority of 2,166 represents only 5.9 per cent of the 1964 votes. There is no Liberal this time at Central Norfolk, however, and although the Con- servative majority of 12 per cent there in 1964 looks reasonably comfortable, the absence of a Liberal seems likely to cut it, regardless of the effect of an anti-Tory swing.

Mr. Anthony Fell had a majority of only 4.4 per cent at Great Yarmouth and is plainly in jeopardy. Of the controversial Mr. Fell, how- ever, a political opponent said : 'Well, he's a character, and Norfolk still likes characters, thank goodness,' so perhaps his chance of sur- vival is greater than the statistics suggest. Mr. Eldon Griffiths, at Bury St. Edmunds, has a stiffish fight in spite of the majority of 4,990 (10 per cent) he received in 1964. His Labour opponent, Mr. Colin Seager, can look to popu- lation changes for new support—overspill has been building up the electorate, which is now 4,108 up on the last election figure. Furthermore, there is no Liberal in the fight this time, and the Liberal polled a tenth of the votes in 1964. At Lowestoft, Mr. Edward Heath's PPS. Mr. Jim Prior, has a majority of only 5.4 per cent to defend, which means that he must now be mighty grateful for his solid reputation as an industrious constituency man. Neither of the Norwich seats seems likely to desert Labour.

One has the impression that neither side can quite bring itself to believe what the opinion polls are telling them. Casual conversations yield a chaotic mixture of forecasts, both local and national, which in the end are interesting because of their lack of uniformity. If Labour is going to sweep East Anglia. then many political workers on the ground are going to be surprised. Some gains seem certain, but the voters will most pro- bably achieve some peculiarly East Anglian balance between old attitudes and new popula- tions. They will enjoy handing on a cluster of marginal seats to add uncertainty to the nest general election after this.