POLITICAL COMMENTARY
If only Jim were a Tory
PETER PATERSON
One by one the issues on which the forth- coming—October?—general election is likely to be fought are being brought out by the politicians, given a brief airing to test public reaction and then withdrawn for further examination and development by the back- room specialists at party headquarters. It is a cat-and-mouse game with a large element of risk, and a party may quickly regret ever having raised a particular subject if it finds itself instantly mauled by the other side.
Most of this activity, naturally, comes from the Tories. They must not only dis- cover which issues cause most concern to the electorate—prices, trade union reform, law and order, et al—but they must also use the flurries of political excitement they create to demonstrate to the public that the Government is fumbling and incompetent, constantly unprepared and liable at any moment to be caught embarrassingly off balance. This, at any rate, is the ideal, and if the only indicator of the Opposition's success were the public opinion polls, its ability to stay ahead would tend to show that its tactics are correct.
To pay too much attention to the polls, however, is to ignore the important element of timing: true, the game seems to be played entirely in Labour's penalty area, but unlike the fixed ninety minutes of a soccer match, one side in a British electoral battle can decide when the final whistle is to be blown. This enables the Government to pace the game, to time its own initiatives, encourage the Opposition to reveal its hand too quickly, and to come on strongly itself at the crucial time; during and immediately before the campaign proper.
Joe Louis in his prime fought a different opponent every few weeks, a campaign which became known as the Bum-of-the- month Club. Edward Heath, whose suprem- acy cannot honestly be compared to Louis's, seems intent on founding the Issue-of-the- week Club, and one of the fascinations of current politics is in seeing how long he can keep it up. Mr Heath's tactics underline the old dilemma facing Oppositions: they can either spell out their own alternative policies, and risk having them shot to pieces by the Government or by interested pres- sure groups, or, alternatively, they can con- centrate on criticism of the Government and face being branded as irresponsible, carping and bankrupt of ideas.
All the signs are that the Conservatives are using a mixture of the two approaches. Thus, the issue of trade union reform is raised against a very full background of ex- planation of what a Tory government would do, while the parallel issue of the rising cost of living is used not to buttress the union argument or to spell out what Mr Heath would, or could, do if he were in the driving seat, but to denounce the Government. It is arguable that at this stage the latter is the more effective approach, since it focuses on a universal cause of concern acd firmly fixes the blame on the Government. If, as some- one once said, the 1951 election was lost in the grumbling queues at doctors' waiting rooms, then the 1970/71 election could well be lost or won in the supermarkets.
Trade union reform is altogether trickier, and it is doubtful wliefher Mr Heath is play- ing it as effectively as he might. Certainly) as the polls show, this is an issue which worries the public. But people are also frightened of industrial strife on a large scale and probably would not be willing, given the choice, to endure massive strikes in the public services on the French or Italian pattern merely to have the British bargaining system tidied up. So heavyweight warnings like that issued on Monday by Mr Hugh Scanlon, president of the Amalga- mated Engineering and Foundryworkers' Union, of 'a strike explosion of unparallelled bitterness and tenacity' over the Tory plans, while perhaps containing a large element of bluff, could have the effect of making voters fearful that to return a Conservative gov- ernment might actually provoke industrial warfare.
Privately the union leaders are much less aggressive about the Conservative proposals and profess themselves not nearly so alarmed as they were over Mrs Castle's 'In Place of Strife' package. Not that such a view is likely to be heard in public this side of the general election, and certainly not this side of Mr Scanlon's forthcoming election for the presidency of the AEF. So the public fear of a government taking on the unions and thus making everyone's life uncomfort- able, might make this topic counter-produc- tive for the Tories.
How else could Mr Heath handle this issue? He may, of course, be content to continue on the same lines, calculating that the fear is outweighed by the popularity of union bashing. But an alternative approach would be to treat the whole subject as a straightforward question of law reform: few union leaders really know where they stand with the law on picketing, for example, and the threat of a writ from a dissident union member, on whatever grounds, strikes fear into the hearts of everyone at trade union headquarters. A law reform measure would be difficult for the unions to oppose as such.
But to return to the central point of the advantages and risks involved in the essen- tial pre-election political skirmishing. Mr Heath's greatest handicap is that he faces, in Harold Wilson, the most astute Opposi- tion leader of modern times. The Prime Minister, a veritable Clausewitz of political tactics, holds the view that to topple a gov- ernment an opposition must, to borrow a term from bridge, be able to establish a suit. In other words, they must find themselves not so much a policy as an issue, capture it as their own, and then exploit it for all they are worth. Having decided that this is what opposition is about—and recalling his own success with technology in the early 'sixties —Mr Wilson as Prime Minister has made it his business to try to ensure that no such issue arises, or that, if it does, it is defused as quickly as possible. And for good measure, he is always prepared to harrass the Opposition by behaving as though he were still in opposition himself—hence the needling over the alleged secret contacts between the Tories and the Smith regime.
Now, it is perfectly arguable that Harold Wilson's position on Rhodesia is so weak that he would be well-advised to keep quiet on the subject: there are many erstwhile supporters of the Labour party, and not a few backbenchers, who believe that he should have used force to prevent UM, and that the whole 'Tiger' exercise was an attempt at a sell-out. His attack on the Con- servatives, however, served several useful purposes. In the first place, Labour's most profoundly disillusioned followers are those who take an interest in foreign affairs: they may now be persuaded that Mr Wilson, in spite of past blunders, remains at heart deeply committed to the ideals of the colonial freedom movement, that he really does believe that the issue of colour and race occupies, as he said in his weekend speech, 'the centre of the world stage'. Clearly, apart from the 'Paki-bashing' in- cidents of recent days, it does not occupy the centre of the British stage, partly, of course, because of the bi-partisan. under- standing that exists on this issue—Mr Enoch Powell always excepted.
But the whole episode was a useful Wil- sonian device for blunting the impact of Mr Heath's own damaging attack on the Gov- ernment at the weekend over rising prices: the Tory leader still has a great deal to learn from Mr Wilson about scene, and headline, stealing. And one of his problems. perfectly illustrated by his reaction to this affair, is that he responds in too shrill a way: Mr Heath's 'sue me or shut up' statement gave the impression that he had lost his cool, enabling the Prime Minister, with wide-eyed innocence, to point Out that he had named no names, so why was Mr Heath getting so excited?
Nevertheless, the Tories are bound to plug away, exploring possible issues, probing and testing the Government's defences and gener- ally making a nuisance—and sometimes fools—of themselves. It would be foolish to uredict what issues will arise between now and the election—no doubt someone is down on his knees nightly at Central Office praying for some modern, sophisticated. credible version of the Zinoviev letter to turn up.
Of those issues which have arisen the Opposition can claim to have gained some dividends from three or four. Each of these. with astute handling and a Modicum of luck. might make high calibre ammunition for the election campaign—and any one of them could emerge as the paramount issue on which the game will be decided. Trade union reform. with the reservations I have already entered, is obviously a good Tory issue, and so is the cost of living. There are two more of which Ted Heath should be the potential master: law and order, and the permissive society. Both have a high arousal factor, but both need handling gingerly for fear that they will blow up in the face of whoever lights the fuse. Unfortunately for Ted, there is only one politician in the country who is capable of handling such explosive material. and that man is James Callaghan. If only Jim happened to belong to the Tory party, I would fearlessly predict a landslide victory' for Ted Heath right now.
Previous page
