THE MARGINALS - 2

Megalopolis at the Polls

By J. W. M. THOMPSON

laONDON is 'a nation, not a city,' as Disraeli observed : but fortunately Londoners tend to vote much as the members of the larger nation do. I say fortunately, because Londoners are so numerous that they could overwhelm other regions if they developed any distinctive political personality or commitment. The 104 parliamen- tary constituencies which form the Greater London area produced a comfortable Conserva- tive majority in 1959 (62 against 42), as did the country as a whole; and then in 1964 they came up with a slender Labour majority (54 against 49, with one Liberal), again matching the country's swing. Evidently this huge chunk of England, reaching from the lovingly-preserved commuter villages of the Green Belt to the decaying East End tenements, happens to be a conveniently representative sample of the whole electorate.

Not surprisingly, then, substantial Labour gains are expected in London's many Tory-held mar- ginal seats. If the swing to Labour is being at all accurately measured by the opinion polls, the Government could capture up to twenty London constituencies from the Opposition; and even if Labour does less well than this, some useful acquisitions seem certain.

A uniform pro-Labour swing of 1 per cent on March 31 would mean that the Conservatives had lost Brentford and Chiswick, Hornchurch, Lewis- ham North, Leyton, Norwood, Uxbridge and Walthamstow East. A swing of 2 per cent would carry in addition Chislehurst, Hampstead, Hen- don North, Ilford South and Lewisham West. A 3 per cent swing would throw in Croydon South and Harrow East. A 4 per cent swing would cap- ture Mitcham and Merton and Morden. A 5 per cent swing would take over Bexley, Croydon North-East, Heston and Isleworth and Hornsey.

Since the latest Gallup Poll records a pro- Labour swing of just over 42 per cent, while other polls put it even higher, the Tory outlook is clearly pretty bleak. Across Greater London as a whole, Labour might emerge, on present indi- cations, with twice as many MPs as the Conserva- tives could muster—a striking break with the restrained seesaw of recent general elections.

It must, in fairness, be recorded that a number of Tory organisers take a slightly more hopeful view. Frequently their canvassing returns fail to disclose any big swing to Labour since 1964. Indeed, one of the directors of the Tories' cam- paign in London said the other day that if it were not for the opinion polls he would judge the parties' relative strengths to be much the same as in 1964. But canvassing figures have been dis- credited again and again in recent years.

It was ominous for the Tories that in 1964 the London constituencies revealed a further break- down in the habit of voting by class allegiance. Labour's twelve gains at that election were attri- buted largely to the new support which the party won among voters of the middle class (or middle income group, if you prefer it), and the party's strategists are now expecting a further substan- tial invasion of this traditional Tory territory.

Traditionally, London has been split politically into three concentric belts: the old, inner, work- ing-class areas, strongly pro-Labour; suburbia further out, fairly reliably pro-Tory; expensive suburbia, even further away from the centre, overwhelmingly pro-Tory. The outer, affluent belt is hardly likely to change its voting habits this year, but the inner suburbs are a different matter. People who live in the smaller owner-occupied houses which have spread over such great tracts of ground in this century have weakened their attachment to the Tories, once so dependable. There are plenty of Labour voters among the sort of salaried men and women who take over nineteenth-century terrace houses and do them up in spanking House and Garden style. Even Hampstead, which has many of the most expensive and agreeable private houses in Lon- don, will probably defeat. Mr. Henry Brooke, the former Tory Home Secretary : and although that may be a special case, it is startling to recall that Mr. Brooke had a majority of no less than 25 per cent of the votes at the 1959 election.

Of course, the weakening of class voting habits can cut both ways. It seems to be agreed that this election is uncovering a falling-off in enthusiasm among Labour's most traditional supporters—the council-tenant, working-class voters. For one thing, council rents have risen rather steeply in many places in the past year or so, and that is likely to dim some Labour candidates' support. The cost of living is another irritant. One Tory candidate, after working through some new blocks of council flats which have been com- pleted since the last election, reported that the canvass showed the tenants splitting two to one in favour of Labour—formidable enough in a marginal constituency, but hardly the old solidarity.

But at least Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, seek- ing to retrieve Leyton from the disaster of his by-election defeat, ought on any normal reckon. ing to win easily: Leyton returned a 16 per cent Labour majority in 1964. Yet no politician who has come to grief as spectacularly as Mr. Gordon Walker will ever again be over-confident, and prejudice on the racial issue .may damage him.

On the Tory side, if Mr. Brooke is clearly in danger at Hampstead, so, on statistics, is Mr. Heath at Bexley. But although Mr. Heath has hardly been able to visit the constituency during the campaign, he is reported to be running strongly, and a poll published in the Sunday Times on March 20 indicated a possible per- sonal triumph. His neighbour Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith at Chislehurst (majority 3.1 per cent) is in greater peril.

In 1964 two Tory MPs beat the swing in Lon- don and kept their seats: Mr. Charles Curran (Uxbridge) and Mr. John Harvey (Walthamstow East). Having done it once, they may conceivably do it again, which would be a pleasing sign that a candidate can still exert some control over im- personal trends. Possible Tory gains, however, are distinctly hard to spot in this election. Mr. John Barter, who failed to hold Ealing North by only twenty-seven votes last time, seems likeliest to bring one off; he has been encouraged by last week's local election. Tories at Clapham (Labour majority 1.4 per cent) are also hopeful.

The Liberals are fighting rather fewer London constituencies than in 1964, and most of their sixty-seven candidates are to be found in surbur- ban constituencies. One of the places where the Liberals have dropped out is Lewisham North, where Mr. Christopher Chataway is fighting from the insecure base of a 343-vote majority. There were 3,798 Liberal voters in 1964, and Mr. Chataway is the sort of Tory candidate to appeal to Liberal voters; but it is doubtful whether they will in general make such judgments. The broader question, 'Heath or Wilson?', may well sway more votes. Of course, Mr. Grimond's hammer- ing of Mr. Wilson on the Common Market may have its effect. The Liberals have also dropped out in Hornchurch, and have thereby probably sunk Mr. Godfrey Lagden's foundering ship, for there were 12,725 Liberal votes in 1964 and his Tory majority was only 234.

The Liberals are also fighting several constitu- encies which they left alone last time, These in- clude Harrow East, where Commander Courtney, having repelled the forces of the KGB and his own local association officers, is now defending his 5.8 per cent majority.

Naturally, the outstanding Liberal campaign is at Orpington, the one constituency out of Greater London's 104 which they held in the last Parlia- ment. It is an uphill campaign. Mr. Eric Lubbock has been a most assiduous MP ever since that famous by-election in 1962, a fact which helped him to retain his seat at the last election: but his majority then was cut from 18.2 per cent to 6.6 per cent. The Tories, at least, are sure that they are now about to reclaim. Orpington at last.

In a sense, the Liberals' original capture of Orpington was another example of the revolt against class allegiance. This once true-blue belt of Kent suburbia decided spontaneously to dramatise the frustrations of the middle-class Londoner by jolting the Tory government of the day. In doing so, it also illustrated another essen- tial fact about London politics. It is a sad thing, but they are to a very large extent the politics of frustration in personal life.

London has always been different things to iifferent people, from the Great Wen assailed try William Cobbett to the swinging pleasure city pictured by present-day lady journalists: but un- happily, to the voters of our time it appears most frequently and convincingly as a frightful mess. Its housing arrangements are inadequate, its streets are maddeningly congested, its public transport is ramshackle and below strength, its prices are high, and it is so big that you can hardly ever get away from it. In their role as parents its inhabitants are often worried about schools: as householders they find the rates grow bigger and their mortgages more and more expen- sive. There is something corruptingly frustrating about a city which seems to offer so many ameni- ties, only to thwart most of its citizens when they try to enjoy them. No wonder London suburbia, through the years of apparent material progress, has shown increasing signs of disaffection. And since no government has much chance of setting things right in the foreseeable future, it may com- fort the Tories on March 31 to reflect that, long before 1967 is over, the commuters and house- holders of Greater London are sure to be once again voicing mutinous thoughts about whatever power is installed at Westminster.