REVIEW OF BOOKS

Terry Pitt on an albatross of the Left

It would be neither interesting nor relevant to set out here a comprehensive expose of Dick Taverne's political position. I leave that to Lord Chalfont, and to Mr William Rees-Mogg and his chief hatchet-man Bernard Levin (the latter, it will be recalled, holds a position of employment on The Times similar to the one which the family of the young Claud Cock burn felt, uneasily, was tantamount to going into Journalism '). Friends of Taverne can be relied upon to commission opinion polls, and to keep us in touch with his movements and any new ideas which he has; meanwhile, since he has now published his side of the Lincoln affair,* it is more valuable by far to address the impressions left after reading the volume.

First, The Future of the Left is a preposterous title for a tract which has no analysis and no perspective. The sub-title might have sold fewer copies, but surely our hero's integrity was not swayed on that ground? How can you talk about the Left, or social democrats as they are termed here, with no reference to Bernstein, Rosa Luxembourg, Kautsky? What is the development of democratic socialism in Britain without reference to Robert Owen, Tawney and Cole? What about the New Fabian Research Bureau, the Social Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party? Arise — or turn in your graves — guild socialists, co-operators, Tolpuddle pioneers, and working men and women everywhere who have had the nerve to see that the Hampstead Emperor through the ages has no clothes.

Second, as the audio-tactile generation has long recognised, words can be misused to convey exactly the opposite of what they mean. Perhaps more important, sub-editors, slack thinkers or plain news managers can use words to mean exactly what they want them to mean. Thus, the Labour Party is an alliance of workers and left-wing " intellectuals" (the latter being noun and derogatory); whilst in contrast to a Tribune rally, a Fabian tea-party is thoughtful and " intellectual " (adjective, and approbatory). When Good King Richard goes to Lincoln, it is to "meet with supporters and friends"; but when some elected representatives of his general management committee — who naturally live closer — confer, it is to "use their influence" or to "establish control" against the man not breaking step as the bridge is crossed.

Third, and most important of all, we need a revitalisation of political literature (or even, if that is impossible, of the English language) to achieve a fair consensus of the meaning of words such as left, left-wing, radical, rank and

file, grass roots, representative, and so on — used ad nauseam in such a text as this. Suf

fice it to say that Taverne describes the term 'left' in his own introduction as being "on the left of the Conservative Party." Note The Future of the Left: Lincoln and After Dick Taverne (Cape £2.95) well, it is not even to the left of our present masters! So let us begin, as it were, at the beginning. For clearly Taverne has no knowledge worth recounting before the 'Gaitskell' splits of the late 'fifties.

I believe that the internal Labour disputes of the 'fifties were far more important than the ones of today — and certainly far more substantial than the arguments we now hear from the partly resuscitated anti-membership (meaning antiConfefence) wing of the Labour Party. It may Well be true that we lost the 1959 general election because the Labour Party was divided. Divided parties do not normally win elections. But, Gaitskell's tax-gaffe aside, the issues which divided us then — Suez, apartheid, nuclear disarmament, and the interpretation of Labour's attitude to public ownership — whatever your preference, there can be no denying they were red-blooded issues of principle. Big men stood on each side; the heat in the kitchen was difficult to bear.

What are the issues which divide us today? Certainly not public ownership; we are now committed to common ownership of land, shipbuilding and ancillary industries, docks, North and Celtic sea oil and gas, mineral rights and aircraft — which, taken together, would have made Herbert Morrison's hair stand on end. Certainly there is not, either, any difference of real substance between the Parliamentary Party and the Annual Conference — no resolution in Blackpool obtained a two-thirds majority against the platform. In fact, taken all in all Labour had a remarkably successful Conference in 1973,

Spectator January 19, 1974 and there is no evidence whatsoever that if We met again next week there would be any less enthusiastic unity. I recount these facts because so few people seem to have taken them on board. If the future of the Left has any meaning at all, it is that the real Left (the Labour Party) is in better heart than at anY time for more than a decade. There are specific reasons for this which I shall set out later.

Mr Rees-Mogg and Mr Taverne continue a short honeymoon amongst Whiggish Oxbridge students and fellows, whilst other creatures come forward to finance the 'campaign' for a 'centre' party (whatever that maY mean). Meanwhile the Labour Party has begun to learn the lessons of the past, and has assiduously constructed a new programme bY an overt opening of debate with its affiliated organisations and the TUC itself. Precisely the people Taverne feels are our albatrosses.

The truth about British politics, as I never tire of saying, is that two thirds of the electorate divide evenly but religiously between the two great Parties. A Liberal here, a Na.: tional there, a well-heeled nut everywhere; makes no difference. When the chips are down, every little child alive (forgive the licence) is either a little Labour vote or a little Conservative vote. That leaves just one thiil of the electorate to decide. But wait a minute. The average turnout is usually 70-80 per cent, of the vote. So what do we now conclude Well, the facts tell us that broadly 90 per cent . of the Labour and Tory supporters will vote, whilst only one half of the uncommitted (that is, the one third of the electorate which has no predetermined voting pattern) will travel to the booth. It must be stressed that this grouP is most elusive, since expensive opin1013 polling has shown that in any given election only one half will vote — and that they vote out of reasons of personal dissatisfaction. So if you wins them this time, you loses them next! So where are we now, in terms of the, Rees-Mogg/Taverne theme of an eventtl' 'centre' party? Well, the first thing to say IS that, with all of their money, they are operating on less than 20 per cent of the vote and most of that on General Election night will sit in front of the TV set preferring complicated reasons of insufficient motivation to actually going out and voting. Lincoln showed different, you may say. Then there ist the Liberal support at by-elections, you inigh add. Quite good points. But what happens t?) minority party candidates once Spring is here. The snow, and they, melt to leave a green grass pitch for teams who long since left the Fourth Division. No top-league team Whe,.11, defending an awkward attack fails to put ta` ball out of touch. So Labour conceded .a corner at Lincoln. So what. When the ban .15 struck and the opposition forwards move 113 for the kill, it can, and usually is, cleare again towards the political strikers. What I am saying is that Dick Taverne is now a political eunuch, castrated by his ov'm decisions. George is ensconced in splendour' in the least splendid city in Europe; GwYr12„s turning an honest buck, even though t11,,`" season ticket soon expires; Jim has move i" from regional Labour organiser to being Secretary (no less) of one of those obscure and even more obscurely financed Corritn,tr Market committees. Bill did well in tr'' Shadow Cabinet elections — he lost, but then he always does — his vote being precisely the number of pro-EEC Members. That still leaves many others, of whom only Roy and Slr Geoffrey are really interesting. Sir GeoffreY aside (he was Taverne's predecessor in Lin coin, and since then has only been heard of hY terminal insomniacs); that leaves us with ReY; As a West Midlands kid, my own view oe' Roy Jenkins is especially complicated — I 105' his eloquence, his disdain for fools, his charrn and enterprise in cultivating those friend; whom he wishes to make: on the other hall • .4pectator January 19, 1974 I am put off by his accent, his choice of friends, and the way he twitches his sleeve When talking to reporters or the hoi-polloi. It see ms to me important to distinguish between 1%Y and Taverne. Largely through shortage of lalent, the Gaitskell years were characterised aY those supporters of Hugh who had been around, and a different set who had been co,s.tnpiled on a card-index in Red Lion Square: ulck Taverne being among the latter. (Let any doubter read Lord Windlesham.) The result has been a young and an old right in Labour Politics. This is most interesting because it Will affect or effect Roy's chances of becoming the Party leader. The 'card-index' MPs of the Rodgers era are one thing — no, let us be rore honest, they were one thing. Their longer in the tooth colleagues are quite another matter. In spite of Fabian connections and carefully timed news-releases of Socialist C.rnmmentary articles, the majority of ,laverne's old friends in the Parliamentary Labour Party are doing distinctly badly. Yet several of the older hands who had previously enc o ur aged them (Douglases Jay and tiloughton, Roys Jenkins and Mason, Denises owell and Healey) are now doing very, very WeTll. Why?

I it just possible that the Labour Party is at last making its own policy? Could it be

ank_opd_file members are — instead of Waiting for the CDS newsletter — actually drafting their own resolutions? What if a hat llot of transport workers and engineers acf,'Ilally had the audacity to confirm Jones and ,anlon in their jobs — and even support Ineir political views? What if, to crown it all, the Party ran into the next election united on a radical programme? And how would Printing House Square behave in the face of the Ultimate horror — a Labour victory? Would a Jrarge part of the Tory Party hive off to Dick verne, or would he himself join the Tory frarty? And, in any case, what policy would new' grouping follow? This book makes Iciln attempt to instruct us on this score; inneed, in one of those appealing moments of 'andour (with sincerity oozing from every Pr,2,1;e) the author tells us that in terms of L'-'11cY or philosophy "people should not ;4Pect too much from their politicians." Well, 'for one, in this book, expected nothing more nor less than I got. As Gore Vidal once said bout Bobby Kennedy's intellectual qualities

deep down he's real shallow.

1,71errY Pitt is Head of the Labour Party 4esearch Department.