The Ted and Harold show?
It is. of course, a relief that the balloon which has already been inflated by so much hot air is at last released, airborne and ascending. And a week in which 0overnment, abetted by an assortment of establishment worthies, has exerted un- paralleled pressure towards the 'volun- tary' cancellation of a series of cricket matches is not, when one comes to think about it. at all a bad week in which to launch the 1970 general election. For what the electorate is, or ought to be, about to declare itself upon is the character and style of the government which it wishes to see practised in the next Parliament. And the style of well-intentioned, anxious, per- suasive and and pervasive government which has developed in the last six years is not too inaccurately epitomised by this bizarre episode of the cricket matches.
With luck the electorate will be in- duced, between now and 18 June, to ask itself, unaccustomedly, what role it thinks a government ought to play in the nation's affairs. It is not the sort of question the people of this country usually ask them- selves. They prefer, as the fortunate in- heritors of one cif the most stable and tranquil political systems in the world, to vote on easier questions of personality, or out of a temporary sense of prosperity, or even simply through habits acquired long ago. More often than not the parties con- nive at this tendency.
The portents are not at present par- ticularly encouraging. It is already being predicted that this general election will be exceptionally venomous, dirty, vitriolic or whatever. This means that personal rivalries between the Ins and the Outs will be played up for all they are worth and personal characteristics assailed in a manner as close to the Eatanswill pattern as modern taste permits (and it is, evi- dently, pretty close). Neither side has hesitated to throw abuse freely at its opponents of late and neither side will have much cause for complaint if the hustings resound to this sort of attack. The people with the right to complain will be the voters. There is, admittedly, a lot to be said for a burst of electioneering anger now and then; it helps to keep the audience awake; but while a dash of mustard makes a good savour it is useless as a main dish. The Labour party (or rather its ad-men) may be forgiven their laPse into plasticine and smear and the Tories may be forgiven the sort of extra- vaant verbal napalm which Mr Eldon Griffiths directed at Mr Wilson last week- end; these things may be forgiven, pro- vided they don't happen too often.
But plainly there remains a risk, as both major parties sense the increasing near- ness of the abyss, that the election will dwindle into an exchange of carefully- wrought Billingsgate. Equally there is the possibility that it will become a contest between competing fan clubs, with each side pitching ever higher the claims it makes for the unique combination of virtues and talents possessed by its leader. This sort of encounter is now dignified by the name of a 'presidential' election. It will be of singularly little use to this country in present circumstances. Mr Wilson and Mr Heath are men of markedly different characteristics but it is foolish to pretend that either of them is, through some catastrophic mischance, denied by nature the resources needed to carry out the duties required of the occu- pant of No 10 Downing Street. Of course a sensible electorate considers the choice of leaders which it is offered : but that is not the same as allowing the election to turn into a sort of knockabout Ted and Harold Show, complete with custard pies and slapstick insults.
Far more important than either party leader's personality, in the present situa- tion, is the nature of the regime which each of them would try to conduct. Mr Wilson's recipe no doubt would be more of the same. This has a ready-made appeal in a country like Britain, which is naturally conservative, and at a time like the present, when unsought change, tech- nological and economic and social, is transforming life willy-nilly and when. abroad, change is wearing a menacingly violent and ugly face. Mr Wilson's recent unguarded description of himself as 'the lesser of two evils' may prove to accord with the popular preference. The 'evil' which Mr Heath represents in this con- text is, simply, more change; new men, a new tax structure, a new concept of indus- trial relations, a new approach to indus- try. The irony of a Conservative leader having to play the role of disturber of the status quo is obvious. The difficulty of securing popular approval for radical measures, particularly at a moment of comparative calm after years of economic tribulation, presents Mr Heath and his party with their greatest challenge.
It is not a challenge which they have yet shown themselves able to meet. Hence, it must be supposed, the Labour party's recapture of the lead in the opinion polls after three years of unbroken unpopu- larity. Once the worst of the economic blizzards had abated, the comfortable conservatism of the country reasserted itself. The one crucial argument which the Tories will have to win between now and 18 June, if they are not to go out into a very desolate wilderness indeed, is the argument over the 'tone' of the kind of society they wish to create. They have enjoyed years of easy triumphs simply by pointing out the errors, often calamitous, which the Labour party has committed in office. They have achieved no comparable success in depicting convincingly the ad- vantages for the mass of the public which they would expect to follow from their own return to power. Indeed. Labour speakers have gained a good deal of elec- toral ground by their own portrayal of Tory Britain as a sterner and less comfort- able land, even, than it was in the years of setbacks and stagnation which they have presided over.
And yet the case is a powerful one for the view that Britain is over-governed, its citizens over-interfered with, their earn- ings over-taxed, the national life over- directed by politicians and administrators of almost infinite variety. The sense of helplessness before remote authority, which has been much remarked upon in recent years and which has made itself evident in the ballot box, is not something unfamiliar to the ordinary voter. Influen- tial voices have sounded the alarm at the steady diminution of individual free- doms. It is notable that eminent lawyers, dedicated to the maintenance of freedom within the law, have felt it necessary to assert their concern. Lord Goodman made an eloquent denunciation of the erosion of the private man's liberties some time ago: Lord Shawcross has lately delivered a similar onslaught on what he termed the 'scandalous' proliferation of governmental restriction upon traditional freedoms. Somehow the Conservatives, if they are to convince the electorate that they have genuine improvements in society to offer. must persuade them that a sense of greater freedom could be achieved without the attendant heartlessness which the Labour party will encourage them to fear. It is a difficult task. The public may prefer to keep its hold on Nurse, for fear of meet- ing something worse. But this is a theme which ought to he central to this election : government (like an election, for that matter) is too important to be left to politicians.
Previous page
