Political Commentary
The old fox in charge Patrick Cosgrave
The period even since the October election has been a deeply depressing one for the ordinary, politically interested citizen; and even more for the concerned observer of Parliament and politicians. For there has been a marked disproportion between the concern of ordinary people with what is happening to their lives and their country and the bustle of politicians, charging round the Palace of Westminster about their daily duties, but increasingly involved in what must appear, when set against the daily destruction of the value of money and the value of almost everything else, fantastical dreams of reform. The Parliamentary system itself can hardly long survive the repeated batterings it receives frOm events and the incapacity or unwillingness of politicians to master those events.
Thus a gloomy preface to a political correspondent's ordinary end-of-term report on politics — in this case politics over the brief period since Labour gained an overall general election majority. One thing, of course, is immediately observable about the way the parliamentary system is working — or, rather, not working — at the moment. Our system depends essentially on the struggle between government and opposition. But there has, in the last few months, been no opposition. The prolonged crisis in the leadership of the Tory Party has meant that, though there have been one or two distinguished interventions in debate from Tory speakers, there has been no concerted Conservative parliamentary stand. Mr Heath's whole posture has been that of a man waiting for the fall of those opposite to him, while the stance of his critics within the party has been that of men and women deeply convinced by bitter experience that no good can be done until he is replaced. It is unnecessary even to make the obvious judgements on the situation within the party to realise that its present parliamentary position is a debilitated one. As my regular readers know, my own view is that health can only be restored after Mr Heath's departure. But the observable fact is that he is still there. Even the Douglas-Home committee, save in the one recommendation that the leader should be re-elected at regular intervals, has done no more than postpone a decision about the leadership; and, by postponement, served the interest of Mr Heath, but done a disservice to the party.
The Conservative Party, therefore, is in a sorry state; and scarcely one of its members bothers to deny it, even formally. Such a situation is, of course, dangerous for the party: it is even mOre dangerous for the country, and for the Parliament of which any party is merely a servant. So far as I could judge a fortnight or so before the recess, Mr Heath had hopes of about ninety back-benchers and frontbenchers in a vote on the leadership taken then. That figure, I imagine, would have been reduced if a vote had been taken then and, I fancy, will be reduced further as time goes by. The decline, though, has been due less to Mr Heath's poor parliamentary performance than to something else altogether — the feeling, far more widespread than any Tory Whip would admit, that for all that the Labour Government has so far threatened it has, in actual performance, been better than the last Conservative government.
Now, this is a feeling that any party is likely to have to endure in the months following an election defeat. The real difficulty at the moment was summarised during Mr Healey's Budget speech by the fact that a great porportion of his cheers came from the Conservative side for, whatever Conservatives thought of his general economic understanding, or of the degree to which it might prevail in the general context of Labour arnbitions, it was still more responsible than that of Mr Barber, while their own leader and his Shadow Chancellor — though not, of course, the 'twin' economic spokesman, Mrs Thatcher — still, clearly, favour the policies of Mr Barber, Much travail there will have to be before the damnosa heritas of the 1970 government is purged.
Mention of the fact that Mr Healey did not get much of a welcome from his own side brings me, however, to the difficulties and problems of the Government. As I write, inflation has reached the unprecedented level of 18 per cent; and it shows no sign of moderating, whatever piffling measures are taken by the Chancellor and Mr Varley to reduce government spending. The real fix of the Labour Government is clearly — as Sir Keith Joseph was quick to point out last weekend in Leeds — something that arises out of an increasing determination to maintain all existing jobs in existing industries at improving wage. rates, whether the industries and companies are profitable or not. At any moment that almost any firm runs into trouble Mr Benn is standing by with offers of government help with money government does not have.
Even the clear intention of Mr Benn to use this aid — against the urgings of such as Mr Lever — as a means of nationalisation does not make the whole of the case against the policy. To grasp that case it must be realised that Labour is heading towards an utter stagnation in industry, in which nobody will move even sideways, and which is to be financed by government. And that policy — as well as the
rhetoric accompanying it is, it should be noted, in the sharpest possible contrast to the policy and the rhetoric with which Mr Wilson opemator December 21, 1974 came to power in 1964: then his whole intention was to shake out — his own phrase — inefficient and stagnant industry. He was wiser then than he is now. That said, to anybody interested in the technicalities of politics — the professionalisin, so to speak, of the profession — Mr Wilson's performance for the last few months stn.' passes praise. We have known for a long time that, decent patriot and conservative constitutionalist though he is by instinct, he 12 prepared to abandon or betray any interest or any principle in the service of maintaining the unity of his party.. That unity has, since the, controversy over the White Paper, In Place of • Strife, has been, for him, the highest g00' It was said of Baldwin long after hl reputation had fallen into ruins, and it was said not without truth, that the emollient policies he had followed after the General Strike, damag" .ing though they were in many respects to a country which should have been getting ream for a great war, were useful in keeping the nation more or less together, so that, when the trumpet call for unity was sounded in 1940, the people found it in themselves to respond. tv't Wilson has at least managed to prevent the kind of industrial confrontation which Mr Heath — sometimes against his will — was a past-member at backing into; and for that We may have cause to be grateful to him. The Prime Minister has prevented a ma:l0! split in the Labour Party more than once and ,` is very much in the interest of the country that he should go on doing so. Far more than in the 'thirties a Labour left dragged out of office because of a split party would, because of its alliance with the unions, constitute a maio,r, threat to political stability in this country, threat which even the more constitutiona' minded people in such a movement would be unable to control. Until there is a revived T0rY Party capable of making an altogether different kind of appeal to the country from any which it has made intrecent years, the best goverrulle.,11 is something like the present one, with in' Wilson using his incredible talent to preserve some elements of moderation within it. Yet, it would be ungenerous to allow tile Christmas season to pass without some further words of praise for a remarkable campaigner' ac man certain to go down to the history books 2" the most successful political leader of his tirnev. Mr Wilson is physically a good deal slower nOci than he used to be; he is nearly as long-wind,ee as he became after his 1970 defeat; and ti`e quips do not rise as regularly to his lips. But has the cunning charm of an old fox; he I supremely in charge in Parliament even Will he is manifestly in the wrong; and, in spite 0, the way Mr Callaghan has come on in receril's years, he is clearly the only possible leader 01 his party. In spite of rumours to the contrarY:e rumours which he assiduously encourages —:nq will certainly be with us and in office for cInt,`e some time to come. Even a coalition — were disaster of a Labour split to come about in spit` of his efforts — could not survive without hini,ts' and would almost certainly have him as lw leader; even Tories who once hated him n° a have something like affection, and even measure of respect, for him. ot, So gentle a closing assessment ought 11th however, to take away from the gloom rted which I began. It is a very long time in° 5 since Parliament rose for the Christmas reces„ under so heavy and dark a shadow. The trottinps of Mr Healey around the Arab nations with Te begging bowl in one hand and the fingers of t. other nervously touching his forelock OZ:e Healey in the deserts of Arabia is not We) aggressive fellow we know and hate at horrid has begun to bring home to Members I Parliament how truly desperate the nation'ir position is. But it has also compounded the;$ sense of helplessness, the sense that the tide:ii sweeping everything away. The recess have to be a very refreshing one to make thitTe any better, or raise spirits any higher, by
t" time we reassemble.
Previous page
