Political Commentary
BY HENRY FAIRLIE ET'S face it. Two people could not have looked friendlier
][..,
than Mr. R. A. Butler and Mr. Harold Macmillan as they „, sat side by side on the Treasury bench, Marlborough and 'Am joined. What were they finding to joke about with such deliberate bonhomie? That old Harrovian away in Syracuse? No, not in good taste. We distrust each other? Ha! Ha! What an idea! And both of them, as they laughed, felt surreptitiously for the stilettos which Conservative politicians keep on the end of their watch-chains. Suddenly, an hour or so later, as Mr. Butler wound up his Budget speech, one realised the cause of their merriment. They had been exchanging mottoes from last year's Christmas crackers. A motto a year seems to have become Mr. Butler's slogan, and, after 'Invest in success,' what are We offered this year? 'Liberating the human spirit.' If this did not come from a Christmas cracker, the only possible alternative is that the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Who is rather hot on the human spirit, took it down from one of those tear-off calendars which one always assumes are manufactured by Raphael Tuck & Sons. Mr. Butler trying to find the 'human touch' is one of the painfully embarrassing spectacles of the present political scene. Fortunately for him, his reputation does not depend on these contortions of the soul. He has, since 1945, shown himself to be one of the surewdest politicians of the day. ' , His Budget would seem to• be a good election Budget just because it is, in its general trend, much the same Budget as he alight have produced if there were not going to be an elec- tion at ail. He cannot be charged with trying to bribe the electors : the tax concessions are too small and too carefully distributed to uphold that accusation. (Mr. Morrison, however, has already made it clear that the Labour Party will try to make it. Mr. Morrison, who from the ghostly seclusion of Nuffield College no doubt finds it difficult to recall the days When he was a master at bribing the electors of London !) Such concessions as have been made offer relief to a wide selection of the population : not so much that they will begin to suspect that they are being 'had,' but enough to make them feel that it is worth while turning out on polling day. What Mr. Butler has done, over the past three and a half years, by a thoroughly 5c:insistent economic and fiscal policy, is take reasonable risks man effort to loosen the economy. He has taken that risk again, and because it coincides with a general election, he is open to the charge of producing an election Budget. But—and this is not rationalising after the event, because I made the point in this column in February—the obvious and possibly the only sequel to last year's stand-still Budget was that this year's should offer some concession to the taxpayer. Mr. Butler's past Policy icy surely suggests clearly his preference to use the other fiscal measures which he hinted at in his speech, in order to Meet any threatening crisis, rather than the weapon of taxation. To mix the metaphors most commonly used about Budgets. he holds the reins with the Bank rate and holds a carrot in front of the horse at the same time, in the hope that it will gallop faster without ever getting out of hand. The Labour Party, certainly, whatever its public attitude, is genuinely worried by the Budget. It provides a fillip for the taxpayer without in any way seriously damaging Mr. Butler's and the Conservative Government's well-earned reputation for good housekeeping. Moreover, the benefits will appeal particularly to the class which, quite wrongly, has come to be regarded as identical with the floating voters, but which nevertheless does hold a key position in many marginal constituencies. It is going to need a very small swing indeed—only thirty-five seats have to change hands—in order to give the Conservatives a majority of about one hundred over the Labour Party. It is far too early yet to make prophecies—though the bets are already being laid—but Mr. Butler may well have ensured by his economic policy generally and by this Budget that those who have been rather surprised to find that Conservative policies have not hurt them—and may in fact have benefited them—will take the trouble to cast their votes. Elections are won by the party which can pull out the last few per cent. of voters, and the Labour Party shows no sign of offering as much inducement to them as the Conservatives.
At election time every party has to be saved from its friends, and a native generosity tempts me to try and save the Con- servatives from Sir David Eccles. Solely by coincidence, I believe, on the very day that Mr. Attlee announced the date of the last general election, a special article by Sir David Eccles appeared in The Times. It was a plea for drastic cuts in expenditure, including the social services. It called for a tough economic policy. Sir David Eccles heard a good deal about that article from Mr. Butler and other Conservative leaders, but he was able to plead misadventure in his defence. This time the excuse will seem rather lame. With graceful aplomb, Sir David Eccles has announced that 'We are all working class now.' I do not know how many of -the readers of the Spectator have seen Sir David Eccles, but there is not a man from whom such a remark could be more damaging. As impeccable in his investments as in his tailoring and his taste, he smiles condescension on those who unhappily have been less fortunate than he. He lives in a charming house in the side-streets of Westminster. It is a converted public house and one admires what I believe the Twenties called `chi-chi' as one passes into his dining room through a door of frosted glass which still has the words 'Saloon Bar' inscribed on it. The rooms are decorated in those refined pastel shades which reporters try to describe when at a royal function; and on the walls are a series of Rowlandsons and other eighteenth-century watercolours, the hall-mark of safe good taste. 'All working class now.' It is this sort of thing which preserves the popular legend that Conservatives are perfidious hypocrites.
Previous page
