lection aftermath (1)

Labour's Priorities

Nuglas Jay, MP l'robably history will judge the second general election of 1974, like those of 1964 or 1951, as rn°l'e decisive than appeared at the time. First, ntin the straight popular vote, Labour received -r,t1!, Million more votes than the Conservatives, t.',!4 more than double those given to the t hais. loera „ Mr Thorpe is in the habit of saying ,t 00 per cent of the electorate voted against 4utulr. He forgets to mention that more than Per cent voted against the Liberals. la,Seconcily, the effective Commons majority is "‘elY to be more dependable than it looks. One °outstanding result not exactly proclaim. ed by aur great national press is that Labour will have a.lo1-1ty of forty-three over the Conservative n'Position. A single Opposition mobilised by

'Ile Chief Whip is an operational weapon. A

cvnllection of four or five parties with separate loyalties and whips is a very different — where, in Matthew Arnold's words, wiNnorant armies clash by night." How often 0,„`“ Scotsmen, Irishmen and Welshmen agree p" anything other than grumbling about the olIghsh? Experience also shows that members . aPlinter parties (particularly the Northern ii,rlah and not excluding the Liberals) are, to say and least, less regular attenders than Labour 11,1 Tory Members.

ele other clear result does emerge from the meet'. on. The explicit proposal in Labour s manifesto for a referendum on the Common L,ajltet was plainly one major reason for y,;`,"'°ur's success and the defeat of the Tories 'Jo refused to support it. In almost every 'Loallstituency there was a swing from Tory to 14,,b0nr: but one of the smallest swings of all tea in the Oxfordshire constituency of Neil

• who has loudly and consistently the his support for the referendum. So

„tie new Government is now pledged to a vote it!rough the ballot box" within twelve months, s# ing on the Government," to decide the c`talght issue whether we stay in the Market or s„c'rne out. On that at least Labour can expect "..„,13Port from the Ulster Unionists and S.N.P.

f.,,1 nose who believe, as I do, that it is crucial Chr thls constitutional choice to be settled by n,„e electorate, and not just Parliament, fain have the duty to see that this referendum is tv' and honestly conducted. That involves ni,sIn f conditions at least; fair treatment for the " Points of view on the broadcasting media,

u

..„a'.4c1•1se the Prime Minister has already pro'and and secondly, limitation on campaign i-13tPenditure, as in general elections, which he fcts, to promise. The latter must now be reF gilt for by all who wish to see the nerendum finally decide this issue. vie"'n ld the economic front, the new Government U be did , wise to nerve itself and the nation, as tbr,;-tIPPs and Attlee in November 1947, for 9r four years' hard work and fairly shared have • stenty at a standard of living which would n u been considered wild luxury in 1947. It is riot crisis". which we face. It is three or four

years hard slog. And it is not "inflation" (a word which should be banned from now on in intelligent debate). In 1972-3 under Mr Barber certainly credit expansion ran wild; and its aftermath is still with us. But what we now face, together with every great industrial country, is a cost-push pressure on prices due to competitive pay claims by almost all groups from farmers to TV journalists.

Nor did any of our political leaders often explain during the election to the public just what is the specifically British problem. It is quite simply — just as in 1947 — a major balance of payments deficit which within three or four years we must overcome. Everyone now forgets that we earned £1,000 million current surplus as recently as in 1970 and 1971; and that our non-oil deficit now, as a percentage of GNP, is not so different from that of 1947 — which was overcome in less than two years. Our present £4,000 millions deficit is more than half due to oil; and the whole of the rest is explained by our glaring £2,000 millions trade deficit with the "great home market" of the EEC, due to our joining the Market on surrender terms.

If the public understood this, they would grasp more quickly what needs to be done. First, on the world front, Denis Healey is abundantly right to press for recycling of the Arab oil revenues by investment of a large slice of them in the IMF and World Bank (on which the Arabs might well be more effectively represented), so that those authorities can lend on to deficit countries. This could soon overcome the short-term world problem almost completely. Meanwhile we should attack our own non-oil deficit by a three-year programme which stops further rises in consumption, but maintains full production and employment, and channels all the extra output — as in 1948-50 — into export and investment. To do this we must hold down consumption, not employment; and a good start would be a further rise in the tax on petrol, together with some relief for industrial profits. Secondly, whether by "re-negotiation" or not, we must regain from Brussels our unfettered control over our own economic policy. In particular, we must return at once to guaranteed prices and deficiency payments for farm products, and remove all the present Common Market food taxes and import bans on foodstuffs like beef, mutton, iamb, butter and cheese. This would relieve both our payments deficit and our pay pressures by importing freely the supplies of these foods available now throughout the world at much. lower prices than those enforced in the EEC. Thirdly, we should firmly prevent the money supply rising faster than production; and make real budget economies on items such as motorways where we are now grossly overspending, so as to channel the released resouces into new housing — our most urgent need.

But the crux will be on prices and incomes. Here, I believe, the social contract is the only

practical solution. But it needs a crucial anchor• now lacking: a final independent tribunal to

determine whether a specific claim is within the rules or not. You really cannot stage a Cup Final without a referee, and hope for law and order. I hope the Government will advance quickly the independent arbitration element in the conciliation and arbitration service which — be it noted — Jack Jones has himself consistently advocated.

On the public ownership front, where Labour's manifesto was exceedingly modest, the Cabinet would be prudent to put development land and North Sea oil in the front of the legislative programme. And it would certainly enhance the standing of Parliament if a national long-term pension scheme mainly on the basis of the Labour proposals could emerge from this Parliament, as broadly agreed between parties and not left in danger of being shuttlecocked to and fro like the steel industry from 1945 to 1965.

We now therefore have an excellent oppor

tunity for a constructive Parliament and a strong government, if we get down to the real job on these lines and stop talking nonsense about "inflation," "crisis" and catastrophe.

Douglas Jay is Labour MP for Battersea North