How Liberals could win
The principal cause of the revival in the fortunes of the Liberal Farty is Mr Heath and the chief secondary cause is Mr Wilson. If the Liberal Party continues to do well in by-elections this will be the consequence of Mr Heath's increasingly evident deficiencies as a Prime Minister and of Mr Wilson's failure, as Leader of the uPPosition, to become the main beneficiary of the breaking-up of 9_ie Conservative Party's estate. It may still be possible for Mr Heath to pull himself, his Cabinet and his country together pifficiently well for his party to repossess some at least of those road acres of public support now being recklessly abandoned. 'Jr Heath has not yet lost his party the next election. But he has certainly been losing it safe seats at by-elections and there is not 13huch time left to stop the Tory rot. Mr Wilson and his Labour ;arty have not distinguished themselves at these by-elections. 1,oe publidis generally aware that the Labour Party in office snowed itself no better at guiding the economy than the Conservatives, changed its mind almost -as much, supported the European adventure against the sound instinct of the people, sought as"zealously as the Conservatives to advance the corPorate state through bureaucratic prices and incomes controls, aAnd displayed little more sense of direction than does the present dolinistration. It is not surprising that the public, confronted by wir Heath and recalling Mr Wilson, should now say to the Conservative and Labour parties, " A plague on both your houses!" and turn to Mr Thorpe and the once-great Liberal Party.
Iziberal delegates-meeting this week in annual conference may rind this analysis churlish, and it is true that it excludes any credit for Mr Thorpe and his keen but small band of lieutenants and workers. Their achievement, which in its way is a very great one, has been to keep the Liberal Party going in the hope that, sooner or later, its time will arrive, and that when such a time Comes, there will be sufficient vigour left in the old party for the oPportunity to be seized with strong and eager arms. Even those i?iost committed socialists and conservatives who detest liberals, liberalism and the shades of Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd 2eorge, will acknowledge that somehow or other the Liberal r,artY has survived and now, under Mr Thorpe, is not too badly Placed to grab the chance presented to it. That large part of the Public, which has no cause or desire to hate the liberals, will not ?n. ly acknowledge this but will be very glad indeed that the Liberal Party is available as a very respectable and fairly resPonsible receptacle for the votes of the disillusioned.
In voting for Liberal 'Party candidates, electors are turning away 'rem the Conservative Party of Mr Heath and, to a lesser extent, ,from the Labour Party of Mr Wilson. -They find Mr Thorpe's beral Party to hand, and so they vote for Mr Smith, Mr Tope, Mr.Freud. In so doing, they are not voting for specific Liberal policies. It is evident that the great majority of the public knows ljttle about Liberal policies and probably cares less. The Liberal Party rushed out last week a potted version of these policies, so.rne of them good, others silly, but no one, inside or outside the Liberal Party, can sensibly believe that the electors are voting ,Iberal because they have considered the situation and have o_ecided that they want these policies carried out, rather than Mr Meath's or Mr Wilson's policies. It is not policies which separate ,t,he parties from each other (although it is policies which divide mem internally) so much as attitudes and men, and it is in its There is some truth in the criticism of the Liberal Party that it is all things to all men. Its candidates have frequently trimmed their policies to fit the desires and interests of the constituents to whom they have appealed. This is not necessarily a bad thing. -Members of Parliament are often far too unresponsive to the wishes and demands of the people they represent and indeed usually only take those wishes and demands seriously if they consider that otherwise they might lose their seats. It is to his party's whips that the average member of Parliament responds most obediently: to his constituents, as to his conscience, he is much less constant. Liberal candidates have openly, and sensibly, exploited this, and the development of what is called in modern jargon their 'community politics' marks a return to grass-roots. Many people snigger at the Liberal Party's preoccupation during its by-election campaigns with local issues, but the Liberal Party would not attract the support it has been getting if the public was generally satisfied with the performance of Westminster and with the ability of members of Parliament to represent the wishes and interests of those who elected them. On top of popular dissatisfaction with Westminster is popular distrust and dislike Of Whitehall, and here the Liberal Party's long absence from office and power tells to its advantage, for while both Conservative and Labour parties can clearly be regarded as part of the general machinery of government and paid-up members of 'them', the Liberal Party sounds and looks much more like one of 'us' battling against the huge engines of the bureaucratic state. Those people who feel that they have no say at all in the direction of their affairs by governments and ministries, who are convinced that men in authority do not heed them, who think that Parliament neither reflects nor represents their views, who observe that politicians neither genuinely listen nor honestly speak to their constituents, are likely to turn to the Liberal Party without bothering to inquire what policies the Liberal Party happens at the time to be putting forward. Its hands are clean because they have not been soiled by any levers of power.
Historically, the Liberal Party was the party of free trade, cheap food, reform — and an Irish settlement. Historically, too, it tended to show respect for individual freedoms and rights; it has always abjured socialism, and by and large it has shown a healthy hostility towards the more grandiose pretensions of Tory paternalism. It never felt as strongly as did the Conservative and Unionist Party about imperial possessions, although it was the dominant party at the time of Britain's greatest power and influence. Its patriotism was never doubted, except by the most jingoistic of Tories. Its concern for the poor and halt and lame, although often sanctimonious and hypocritical, was sufficiently genuine for its leaders to strive through welfare programmes to mitigate the consequences of its classical economics. There is more than enough in its past for the Liberal Party once again to offer itself, eventually, as an alternative government. But is there enough in its present, for it to be treated thus? It has shown that it can engage the affection of many voters, fed up with the two principal parties, and win by-elections. But if it is to think seriously about possessing and exercising power instead of making friends and influencing people, it will have to add to its distinctive attitudes and men one or two major, and distinctive,policies as well.
The Liberal dilemma is that it has arrived at its present position with the right men and attitudes and the wrong policies. In particular, it is burdened by its blind support for the European Economic Community. The Common Market is an institution which is hostile to everything the Liberal Party ever stood for in its days of power: the EEC is contrary to free trade, it exists by virtue of a Common External Tariff in order to keep the price of food artificially high, it is bureaucratic by nature, it is run by faceless men, it is a denial of representative democracy. Most people who support the Liberal Party are opposed to Britain's membership of the EEC, and wish for a return to policies of free trade, cheap food and reform — and an Irish settlement. With this kind of programme, the Liberal Party could conceivably revive and enthuse the nation. But until it throws off its unnatural burden, this European succubus, it will never speak with authorityand govern with moderation, but will instead remain, as it is now, the party for the men with no particular policies, a very convenient label for those who cannot bear to call themselves socialists or conservatives, and an infinitely capacious dustbin for the disillusioned to throw their votes into.
Previous page
