CITY AND SUBURBAN
Peel, Balfour, Major three Tory leaders stare into the same old abyss
CHRISTOPHER FILDES
John Major got a break this week and not a moment too soon. He knows that once in a lifetime the Tory party pulls itself apart. It happened under Peel, it happened under Balfour, it shows every sign of hap- pening again, and the division is always the same: the protectionists on one side and free traders on the other. The parallels are ominous. Peel in the 1840s changed his mind but could not change his party's. By repealing the Corn Laws, he turned his back on protection, and in effect bet that Victorian Britain could feed itself efficient- ly by trading with the world and buying its food in the cheapest and best markets. The bet won but the Tories lost — split down the middle, they were out of office for a generation. Balfour in the 1900s resolved not to repeat that mistake. Britain as a trading nation had been losing ground to newer competitors. The protectionists, inspired by Joe Chamberlain, offered an imperial vision. Britain's figure, they argued, lay inside a self-sufficient trading bloc based on a single currency — the British empire, no less, and the pound ster- ling. The free traders (they included Bal- four's Chancellor) resisted. Balfour was indifferent. His own policy statement was called Insular Free Trade, a masterly con- tradiction in terms. Inheriting power at the end of a long period of Tory domination, he was content to accept resignations from both sides and lead a weakened govern- ment into the general election which put the Tories out of office — as it proved, for 16 years. In the event, Chamberlain's vision was never tested, for the British empire as a self-sufficient trading bloc proved to be not so much a bad bet as a non-runner. It was to come round again, though, in new colours: for 'empire', read 'Europe'.
Poor Little Englanders
ITS FRIENDS told a familiar story. Britain on its own, they said, could no longer make its way in the world. It needed protection. Its future lay in a prosperous and self-suffi- cient trading bloc which had its own institu- tions and would evolve its own currency. The City and industry were supposed to be all for it. The free-traders were derided for' their lack of vision and, like the opponents of Chamberlain's imperial ambition, were labelled Little Englanders. The Tory party, so long dominant, was divided, and a new prime minister had to choose his strategy. Was it to be Peel's, or Balfour's? Would he take a view of his own and take his chance of carrying his party with him? Or would he try to hold his government together, put off the sundering decisions and hope to find time on his side? His instincts were those of a party manager and of a reconciler. His technique in negotiation was to get the best deal he could and then present it as a tri- umph. He was always likely to play the hand Balfour's way.The trouble is that Bal- four led the Tories to their heaviest defeat of all. His party in and out of Parliament now fears a repetition. Time may be desert- ing its leader.
On second thoughts
HE CAN see that some of the gloss has come off the protectionists' vision. Five years ago, when he was Chancellor, they were urging_us to join Europe's exchange rate mechanism as an economic cure-all, an essential discipline, a token of commitment and the first step towards a single currency. Two years later, when he was Prime Minis- ter, we were forced out — an expensive humiliation but the first step towards eco- nomic recovery. Since then the mechanism has failed under stress. It will no more evorve into a single currency, as Lord Law- son said, than an elephant will evolve into a hippopotamus. Europe as a haven of pros- perity is not quife the vision it was. A haven of high unemployment and high social costs, certainly — but if we wanted to be in a growing market, we should have joined Hong Kong. It is a straw in the wind — a haystack — when Lord Tugendhat offers us his second thoughts on Europe. He was a Commissioner in Brussels, is now a bank chairman (Abbey National) and puts him- self forward as a European reviewing the state of the Union. It has lost standing, he says, in Britain and in most member coun- tries. Its leaders thought they knew best and neglected to carry public opinion with them. Their citizens fear it as the jugger- naut of change. They will need longer to adapt to the single market, let alone the single currency. For that, says Lord Tugendhat, one absolute precondition is that public opinion must be unequivocally in favour. He doubts whether European institutions now have the moral and practi- cal authority to make it work. If it misses the launch date, he asks, does that matter so much, compared with the magnitude of the task and the need to get it right?
Break clause
THIS IS where John Major's break comes in. It arrived from Luxembourg, where Europe's finance ministers agreed to stop pretending that the single currency was only two years away. Next week's summit meeting in Cannes (well, better than Hali- fax, Nova Scotia, anyhow) will shift the date to 1999. That changes the political timetable to his advantage. Until now, 1997 could in theory have doubled as election year and make-your-mind-up year. Now he can blithely say that the decision will be one for the next parliament. He can say more, if it suits him. Target dates slip (the date for European monetary union was originally set at 1980) and whatever may be ultimately be on offer, it will not happen all over Europe at once and we may prefer to watch it in action before signing for it. That takes us easily to 2002 — election year again! On that timetable, he could afford to say now that we would not join a single currency within the lifetime of the next parliament. Would it be enough to rally the free-traders and keep the protectionists on board? It would in its way be a decision.
Doffing the CAP
A BOLDER decision — more Peel than Balfour — would be to tackle the Corn Laws of our day, as represented by the Com- mon Agricultural Policy. This'parody of pro- tectionism, this conspiracy against the cus- tomer, serves to pay political debts, but on the Continent, not here. We just get the bill. Britain would be better placed in trading with the world if we could again buy our food in the best and cheapest markets. That, for the Tories, might even be a winning bet.
Previous page
