Conservatives
Seconds out—the next round
Keith Raffan
Electoral defeat is a depressing experience — but only momentarily so. For it brings opportunities in its wake — opportunities to reflect upon and re-assess the party's past record in office and reappraise its future policies for when it is next returned. In the present critical political situation this will have to be a rushed job because of the inevitability of an election within a year to eighteen months. But because the post-mortem and future policy-making is rushed does not mean it has to be either superficial or ineffective. The party has vast resources of real talent and ability upon which it can draw if it puts its mind to it.
But first of all, the election itself. It was a devastating defeat, rejection, repudiation — call it what you will. It was not just bad luck or bad timing or the Liberals. Whether it becomes in historic terms no more than a temporary setback will depend upon the party itself and its attitude to the election. If we realise the full magnitude of the defeat — all the more painful when you consider that the Labour Party fought the election on the most extreme left-wing platform for thirty years — then there is just the possibility that we may snatch victory from the jaws of disaster at the next election and the Steinway will once again find itself safely ensconced in Number 10.
And it will be the Steinway. For the reasons for the defeat lie not so much in personalities as in policies and their presentation. Since February 28 the media have discussed irrelevantly. and ad nauseum whether or not Mr Heath will go, should go, or can go as leader of the Tory Party. The party must avoid the temptation of getting trapped or even involved in this superficial debate. The party's problems will not be solved, at a stroke, by Mr Heath's replacement as leader. They go far deeper than that and will need a much more fundamental reappraisal than a vitriolic editorial in The Spectator could possibly give them. It is easy to understand why the media have been diverted into this discussion about the leadership when the campaign was fought in such a presidential and personal way. That was a mistake, but there is
no reason for journalists to perpetuate it.
The election was fought on the slogan, 'Firm Action for a Fair Britain.' While the firmness got across, the fairness certainly did not. There were too many symbolic hostages to fortune in the party's record for it to do so, such as too little action too late on property speculation. And there were also too many incidents in the campaign itself, such as what seems in retrospect the almost daily announ cement of excessive profits from all the major banks. In addition there was our lamentable housing record and the totally inadequate housing policy that we presented to the elec torate. And there was also the threat to stop Social Security payments to the wives and children of strikers which was extreme,
vicious, provocative and stupid. It seemed a trifle hypocritical, not to say ludicrous, to
charge into the electoral fight with the battle cry of 'firmness and moderation' when that threat was emblazoned on the banner.
Yes, there were mistakes. And they were not due to bad luck or bad timing or the Liberals. They were our own fault. "Trust the people," Lord Randolph said. Well, we did and we got our answer. And it was not a V-sign for victory either.
Well, what now? Seconds out, and on to the next round. Resilient we must be, but cautious as well. For it is the way we behave now that will determine how serious the defeat was, how permanent the setback will be. Firstly, we must resist the main temptation for a Tory Party, thrown back into opposition, to swing to the right for the sake of making itself look different and distinctive — and usually absurd as well. Selsdon Man must not be resurrected. The first eighteen months of the 'Government of the Quiet Revolution' were an unmitigated disaster — thanks to Selsdon Man. And it is quite arguable that it was he — and all the abrasive, divisive and lame-duck policies that he stood for — who was at the root of the defeat. Our death-bed repentance after eigh teen months may well have been too late to save us this time — but it may not be the next. The sin of U-turns must not be aggravated or compounded by the sin of Zturns — and so returning to square one.
No, we must continue on the uphill road We so painfully discovered through eighteen months' hard experience in office. That is the road of a statutory incomes — and prices (le!, us not forget them next time) — policy. It the road of co-operating with the trade unialt movement, not confronting it (or provoking a either, as we did with the ill-considered In' dustrial Relations Act, that far too legalistic document drafted without any consideration of human relations by the Inns of Court, Conservative Association). It is the road 0; looking after those in real and desperate nee° — full marks to Sir Keith who showed above all others in the last government that Con' servatives not only cope, but care as well. It the very uphill road indeed of trying to tackle the terrifying problems of inner-city depriva.tion — RObert Carr was groping towards tins need with the creation of the Home Offi1e:5 Urban Deprivation Unit and a similar urn' should now be set up within the Conservative Research Department. But who is to carry out the reappraisal of policy and how is it to be done? The Conseil' vative Research Department, t hal chameleon-like organisation, which during government is relegated to the secondary ral,e, of briefing back-benchers, returns to its glory during Opposition, or rather it should a° . so. It must now take up the central policY' making role, but before it can it must be brought back to life — not left embalmed the mummified state of the last three Years; Without looking too nostalgically to the pa" the golden days when Rab Butler was chait" man, David Clarke was director, Reggie Maudling and lain Macleod were mere /Ian ble junior research officers, must be I"' standard to be looked up to and equalled nothing less. The money that has in the Pas been lavished by Central Office on private opinion polls, advertising and marketing a°11sultants should now be spent on the building, up of the Research Department, its personne, and facilities. (And, by the way, the obvian.' 1974 equivalent of Rab is Reggie.) That where the Conservative Party should begin it, pursuit of excellence — in the party's asv" 'mind.' This highly fluid and rapidly moving Pol.l. tical situation is also the real test for a'" ganisations like the one of which I am riaA. tional chairman to show how aware, agile and able they are to adapt their work quickly an effectively to the urgent needs of the pariY:. PEST has in the past been the party's bridg; to the academic and professional communities and also to the voluntary social organisation and pressure groups who might have nothing to do with the Tory Party except through 1.1,S. We must now step up this 'talent scout' role. bringing new people and new ideas into the LartY. It was not for nothing that Harold !vlacmillan once referred to us as the Jesuits of 'Pe Tory Party — its intellectual spearhead.. we must also step up our work as the Party's freelance researchers. Already we have adapted our research programme to meet the Party's most immediate needs. By the beginfling of the summer recess we will have held ur seminars for PEST MPs, candidates and IneMbers on subjects on which we regard the Party's past record and current policy as Weakest — housing, industrial relations, inner City problems, and the mixed economy. Edited Lra.nscripts of our discussions and suggestions Will he printed and published, first being made available to the leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet. We in PEST have set to work and the Whole party must set to work with us — Yesearching, policy-making and communicatl.ng too. There is much to be done. But those In the party's official and unofficial 'think Lanks' must not become cut off, in the garrets ef.their ivory towers, from the grass roots. Old ttatstakes must not be repeated yet again. As a ' earn, with a policy, with a strategy, and with a, crusading zeal too — that is how we must ren' There is no time to lose. We may not have n'ng. As lain Macleod once said, 'Socialists can scheme their schemes and Liberals can .ream their dreams, but we at least have work ,0 do., ckeith Raffan, who was an unsuccessful Tory ,Nidate in the last election, is chairman of '7 Progressive Tory Pressure Group, other 7tivknown as PEST. His article is a contbution to The Spectator's series of Conserci e views on the present situation. Common Market
Previous page
