What Happened : Three Verdicts
A Search for a New Party?
By DESMOND DONNELLY, MP
M Mr. Wilson was taking up residence in ..Downing Street and Sir Alec Douglas-Home was thinking wistfully about a few days' shooting, the most significant judgment upon the 1964 general election appeared in the Guardian of October 17. Those politicians and commentators who missed it in the excitement of Mr. Wilson forming his new administration should give it a long, cool study: for it may hold the key to the next two or three general elections. At the Guardian's request, the English Electric Leo- Marconi computer centre at Kidsgrove had at- tempted to analyse the source of the new Liberal votes. In constituencies where there was no Liberal candidate in 1959 but one in 1964, 53 per cent of the Liberal votes came from Labour and 47 per cent from the Conservatives. Even more important, in constituencies where there had been a Liberal candidate, both in 1959 and in 1964, the increased Liberal vote was drawn in the ratio of 68 per cent from Labour and 32 per cent from the Tories.
I Sensed that something of the kind was hap- pening as the election campaign progressed. In my own constituency I had begun by assuniing somewhat complacently that a new Liberal candi- date, standing for the first time for thirteen years, would draw many more from the Conservative candidate than from myself. It is true that I had taken a somewhat envious look at the Liberals' band of eager bright young helpers and said to myself, `Those people should be in the Labour Party. There is very little difference between the kind of things that they believe in and what I believe.' As the campaign wore on, I received more and more reports of Labour defections to the Liberals. By the eve of poll, there was real alarm in my camp, which I did my best to assuage by smiling reassurances and using that unfailing resort of all politicians who feel that the skids are under them—`quiet confidence.'
In the event my own judgments were quite right. The all-powerful computer's voice did not reach as far as St. David's Head. The Liberal candidate, who polled 9,679 votes, drew 6,961 from the Conservative and onjy 3,697 from me. But it has to be remembered that this was in a constituency where, for historical reasons, the Liberal vote is traditionally Tory; and in 1951 (when the Liberal last stood) he drew over 80 per cent of his vote from the 'Lib-Con' coalition of Major Gwilym Lloyd-George's days. In short, even in far-off Pembroke the trend remains the same, if the proportions vary.
Where, then, did the Labour campaign go wrong--for go wrong it did, in part, if we could only achieve a majority of four after the last five years of lamentable Tory administration? In the early stages of the campaign Labour had one bad patch. Mr. Wilson was appearing too dry and cautious on the television for his own satisfaction. There was the Hardy Spicer affair, redeemed only by the splendid Mr. Herbert Hill. The party was in danger of losing the initiative. But from the moment that Mr. Wilson started to attack the economic situation—which is the central issue in British politics today—the public mood changed. It was interested. The
• Tories then appeared to be on the way out. All this was. confirmed by the anxious at- mosphere in Smith Square, across the road from Transport House. Now it became, 'Three days to save the nation!' Even Mr. Butler was pressed into service on behalf of his party and I am sure that he did his best. Mr. Maudling appeared on television and made me gulp a hasty pint before the price went up.
I felt that the Tories fought back in the last week. Certainly they scared a great many people. If it is true that they were handicapped by my old friend Mr. Quintin Hogg (if any Labour leader had talked about `honkers' it would have been another `vermin' speech) they were also helped strongly_ by the incredible folly of the London tube strike. The success of the last- minute Tory effort was shown by the very large poll on the Thursday morning. This is always a bad sign for Labour, for it means that the forces of reaction are putting their best feet forward.
When the results began to come in, it was fascinating to discern the pattern. On the Thurs- day night, we saw the effect of the white back- lash allied to affluence in the Midlands and in certain Home County constituencies. Next day, there were further disappointments for Labour in the East Anglian agricultural constituencies. (Who was the man who left agriculture out of the Labour manifesto?) But, all the time, the Liberal inroads into Labour votes impressed at y reasonably objective observer. Again and again, a sizeable Liberal vote flashed on to the television screen.
This brings me to the central question: What was the 1964 electorate really trying to say? In decisive terms, it rejected Sir Alec Douglas Home's administration. The Conservatives re- ceived less than 45 per cent of the votes. 111 muffled terms, it has given Mr. Wilson a great chance and an agonising challenge—and how I hope he succeeds.
But I believe the electorate has also said some- thing else. It has no great enthusiasm for the remnants of Labour's cloth-cap image. Instead, it may have begun to search for a new radical party of the left, classless in constitution as wcll as outlook. The next question now is whether Labour reads the signs right.
The long-term answer to all the subsidiary questions that come a-thronging is that there is an almost permanent majority for a no ' doctrinaire radical party of the left, if it can be forked. In that party there would be room—and a real home—for both ,Mr. Jo Grimond and the overwhelming majority of the Parliamenta Y Labour Party. In that thought there is the pros- pect of seeing Mr. Wilson in Downing Sire t for as long as Walpole.
Previous page
