The Old Firm
By ALAN WATKINS
RFADING Dr Butler and Dr King's book on the last election* is a bit like leafing through one's own (or, for that matter, any other politi- cal correspondent's) articles for the past two years—which is always a faintly melancholy thing to do. For, of course, the work deals not only with the election itself but with the preced- ing eighteen months. It is difficult to escape the feeling of having been here before, and very recently.
Not that Dr Butler and Dr King should neces- sarily be criticised on this account. What they have set out to do, they have done extremely competently. Writing books on politics is not as easy as it seems. And though the latest Butler and King bears some marks of being a rushed job (would it really have made any difference to anyone if publication had been delayed for, say, another six months?), it contains some new facts, notably on the Conservatives' use of sur- veys in the 1964-66 period.
More important, the judgments strike me as being basically correct. `One of the supreme ironies of the 1966 election,' write Dr Butler and Dr King, 'was that the final emphasis of the Conservative leader was on the need for radical change and of the leader of the Labour party on the need for patriotism and stability.' Mr Harold Wilson's two election broadcasts con- tained forty-two mentions of 'Britain,' thirty- nine of 'government' and none whatever of 'Labour.' Again, there was a lack of liaison at election time between Mr Edward Heath, Mr Iain Macleod and Mr Reginald Maudling. Mr Heath was directing the campaign, using for this purpose his own private advisers; Mr Macleod was in charge of television; whereas Mr Maud- ling was left substantially to his own devices. Dr Butler and Dr King might well have added that very much the same kind of situation obtained in the months before the election.
But do Dr Butler and Dr King explain what really occurred in 1964-66? Certainly they are modest enough in offering explanations. Dis- cussing the change in public opinion in the autumn of 1965, they write that 'what happened next is still something of a mystery. From May onwards both the Gallup Poll. and NOP had registered a fairly steady decline in support for Labour, and an increase in support for the Con- servatives. . . . Suddenly in mid-September both polls put Labour back in the lead.' And, as we know, the lead was maintained and increased until the general election.
One explanation which was advanced at the time was that the Rhodesian crisis transformed Mr Wilson into a national leader. Another ex- planation, applicable to a longer period, indeed to almost the entire period 1964-66, was that the Government prospered in the opinion polls because its economic policies failed. While Mr Wilson talked of 'firm' government and 'tough' decisions, most people were, in fact, better off than ever before. They were in the happy con- dition of being made to feel self-sacrificing with- out actually having to make any sacrifices.
There is some truth in this, but I do not believe it is the whole explanation. For instance, despite Mr Heath's famous 9:5:1 ratio (nine for wage increases, five for prices and one for
* THE- Barris!' GENERAL EtEcrtoN OF 1966. By D. E. Butler and Anthony King. (Macmillan, 50s.)
production), there is little doubt that substantial numbers of voters were adversely affected by Mr Callaghan's numerous budgets. It did not seem to make any difference. And the fundamental point is surely this: .during the 1964 Parliament the Government frequently gave an impression of incompetence, to enemies and well-wishers alike, in the Westminster-Whitehall-Fleet Street nexus. However, this impression completely failed to communicate itself to the country.
Dr Butler and Dr King do occasionally touch on this question of the differences between metropolitan and national opinion. The 1966 election, they write, was regarded by politicians and pressmen as a bore; yet there is no evidence that the voters found it so; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there is no evidence that they found it more boring than previous elections. Again, Mr William Plowden, the con- tributor of a section on the election at Bexley, writes of 'Mr Heath's own continual evening presence on television. No Conservative candi- date can have had more chance of being seen by his electors. Even so, the . . . survey sug- gested that 19 per cent of Bexley voters still did not know that Mr Heath was their candi- date.' Or take, in addition, the evidence of a University of Essex survey quoted in the book. In a broadcast of March 14 Mr Heath twice referred to 'restrictive labour practices.' More than 40 per cent of the sample thought the phrase had something to do with trade unions or strikes or workers: but nearly 50 per cent could give it no meaning whatever.
Yet though the book touches on this question,
it does not attack it. There is no explanation, over and above what has already appeared, of how Mr Wilson succeeded in impressing himself on the country in the last Parliament. And perhaps it is slightly unreasonable to ask for an explanation. When the Nuffield studies first appeared after the war, elections were much simpler. At least they were much simpler to write about, which is not quite the same thing. 'It is worth reflecting,' comment Dr Butler and Dr King. 'on how far things had changed since 1955: then there were no institutionalised press conferences setting the tone for reporters; then there was no coverage whatever on radio or television; then the party leaders went round the country on whistle-stop tours, and their speeches . . . constituted the national campaign.'
Since 1955 there has occurred an even more important-change: the conviction has grown (Dr Butler has been prominent in assisting its growth) that an election campaign is not nearly so im- portant in affecting votes as the years prior to the election. The Nuffield books have hence become closer in form to continuous political history. This was particularly so of the 1964 study; rather less so of this one, because the period under review is shorter. But there is an increasing internal conflict Are the Nuffield studies to be useful works of reference covering a particular election? Or are they to be works of interpretation and analysis covering a par- ticular period? Perhaps they can be both. Cer- tainly the present book has a brave try. But the solution is not wholly satisfactory. And it looks as if a choice will some time have to be made.
Previous page
