Mr Crossman Rides Again
POLITICAL COMMENTARY,
By ALAN WATKINS
ONE of the burdens which Mr Richard Cross- man carries gaily through this vale of tears is that of being continually misunderstood; or so, at least, it must seem to Mr Crossman. Whenever he opens his mouth he is assumed by some to be talking out of turn. His most innocuous speeches, like the performances of the late Max Miller, are searched eagerly for indiscretions, though of a different kind. It is all very difficult, not least because Mr Crossman does happen occasionally to be indiscreet, and does from time to time talk out of turn. The problem for close students of Mr Crossman—and which of us, these days, can afford not to be?—is to isolate these occasions of indiscretion; to pin them delicately down, as delicately as any collector of rare butterflies, preparatory to conducting a careful examina- tion.
It is in this spirit of patient and earnest inquiry that we should look at his Sheffield speech of last Saturday. And it may be as well to get the in- criminating, or potentially incriminating, passage down in full. 'On the evidence since last July,' said Mr Crossman, 'we can now, I think, claim that the consumption cutback was drastic enough to achieve our aim. But was it too drastic? That it was, is the conclusion now being drawn from the disappointing productivity figures published this week. Certainly these figures are a warning we must heed. We must watch out and prevent the cutback from going too far.' I must confess that my first reaction, on hearing these words read out on the news on Saturday evening, was to say: 'Dick's done it again.'
But had Dick done it again? The Sunday papers were reassuring to lovers of political con- cord. All Mr Crossman was doing, they pointed out, was giving encouragement to his more im- patient backbenchers. (He met the backbenchers last Thursday and is due to meet them again in a week or so's time.) Monday, however, sat ''a change. It was reported in the Guardian and the Financial Times that some of Mr Crossman's colleagues were concerned, nay distressed, at the tone of his speech. One colleague in particular was said to be more distressed than most. This was Mr James Callaghan. 'The Chancellor,' ob- served Mr William Davis (who is widely believed to have a private line, if not to the Almighty, then at least to the Exchequer), 'does not like to see Cabinet colleagues making pronouncements on the state of the economy—especially if they seem to depart from the Treasury line.' But on Tues- day, at question time, Mr Harold Wilson made it clear, or as dear as he usually does, that Mr Crossman was speaking with his approval and support.
And where, precisely, does this leave us? At this point it may be helpful to go back to Mr Crossman's speech at Coventry of a few months ago, in which he said that the road to the Social- ist millenium was paved with repressive legisla- tion, or words to this effect. It is fairly safe to assume that after this small excursion into poli- tical thought, Mr Wilson—no friend to political thought at the best of times—took the 'Lord President aside and told him, in the friendliest possible way, that in future he had better see the text of his speeches before they were delivered to an expectant public. This procedure was followed in the case of the Sheffield speech. We may there- fore take it that, though Mr Wilson might not have expressed himself word for word in the same way had the speech been his, he neverthe- less approved the general drift of Mr Crossman's remarks.
But did Mr Callaghan approve? The answer is that he did not. For months the Chancellor has been telling us that the way ahead is hard and that we can expect no soft options (or whatever phrase happens currently to be in vogue with the John Knoxes of the Treasury's script-cobbling department). Now along comes Mr Crossman and says that the Treasury may have been wrong all the time. Moreover, he says this with the Prime Minister's full consent. Mr Callaghan may be forgiven for asking himself that is happen- ing? And it- s possible to frame the answer to this in several ways.
For one thing, we can say that the Chancellor's position inside the Cabinet is becoming increas- ingly isolated. Do not misunderstand me: this does not mean that his position is becoming in- creasingly -weak. On the contrary, Mr Callaghan is showing just how strong a Chancellor he really is. Though Tuesday's White Paper related to the freeze rather than the squeeze, and though•most of the current Cabinet disputes concern the squeeze, Mr 'Callaghan's hand was evident. Mr Wilson is now beginning to have doubts as to whether the, July measures were too' draconian; and Mr -Callaghan, with the Treasury behind him, feels strong enough to stand up to Mr Wilson: , , I , , • At the time of the summer reshuffle, it will be remembered, there were suggestions to the effect that Mr Callaghan was `imprisoned' at the Trea- sury and that, to Mr Wilson's infinite satisfac- tion, he would bdayall the personal political con- sequences of unpo *at policuis.1;lut things have not worked but qu 4 f,ke thht Mat hat proved of far more importance to Mr' Callaghan is the removal of Mr George Brown. In terms of per- sonal force, Mr Michael Stewart is no substitute for George. It is difficult to imagine Mr Brown, for instance, coming down to the House, as Mr Stewart did on Tuesday, and admitting that he did not have the agreement of the TUC. Mr Brown would have secured that agreement, how- ever many late nights had been consumed in the process.
Again, it is possible to see the disputes cur- rently going on as a continuation of the disputes about the original July measures. The differences from July are that Mr Brown has been removed to spheres where mere economics no longer con- cern him as they used to, and also that Mr Wilson has become slightly more expansionist in temper —or is willing to be thought more expansionist. The similarities are that, broadly, those ministers who were sceptical about the July measures re- main sceptical: they would like to reflate as soon as possible. This, however, raises the question of how the reflation is to be carried out. At the moment it seems something of an obsession with Mr Wilson to avoid any charge of initiating a `consumer boom.' But how exactly does one reflate without having a consumer boom of some description? The answer is by no means obvious. It is all very well to talk of investment allowances or grants or of the Common Market; but busi- nessmen are not going to build factories until they can be sure they can sell their goods. These, at any rate, are the kinds of argument that mem- bers of the Government are now having.
What is perhaps significant is that, Mr Wilson apart, none of the ministers so far mentioned by name in this piece is a professional economist. Both Mr Roy Jenkins and Mr Anthony Crosland are keeping their heads well beneath the parapet. Mr Jenkins is trying to prove a worthy successor to Sir Robert Peel; Mr Crosland's endeavours are slightly less well-publicised. To neither of them, however, is economic policy a major con- cern. The result is that Mr Callaghan's hegemony, to which I have referred, is more absolute than it would otherwise be. Mr Crossman, for instance, may be regarded as Mr Callaghan's (or, to put it in less personal terms, the Treasury's) most articulate opponent inside the Cabinet Articulate Mr Crossman may be; an economist he most certainly is not, as he would be the first to admit, with some pride. He has to operate by political instinct, which may be sound, but is no match in economic argument for a Treasury-backed Mr Callaghan.
This kind of situation has, I believe, important consequences for the notion of Cabinet govern- ment. In the past the necessity for a well-in- formed electorate was a matter of concern to the serious-minded. More recently it has become fashionable to talk about the need for a well- informed House of Commons. Hardly anyone has bothered to ask whether the Cabinet is well- informed. The assumption has been that it is; and that it is only necessary for the House of Com- mons to be equally well informed for a new political era to dawn.
In fact it is misleading to use phrases like `well-informed': ministers such as Mr Brown, Mr Crossman and Mr Stewart can obtain most of the economic information they need, as, if the truth be known, can ordinary members of the House of Commons. The difficulty is not that economic information is difficult to get hold of but that it is difficult for lay ministers to inter- pret. Economic officials, whether from the Trea- sury or elsewhere, talk a private language. As one minister put it: 'I just don't speak their lingo.' The difference in degree between economic and other political arguments is now so great as to be a difference in kind. And the result is that in this field Cabinet control is much more tenuous than it is in others.
However, there is no need for despair. Though the Treasury is sticking firmly to its line, more and more ministers are becoming impatient. And there is one sure way for the Treasury to be de- feated. This is for the opinion polls to show a diminishing Government popularity. Then Mr Wilson really will do something.
Previous page
