Out of steam
Nothing is certain in politics but it seems at the moment very likely indeed that the General Election will be held in October. We certainly hope that it will be and that it will result in a victory for Mrs Thatcher. Nor do we have much doubt that such will be the result. On the one hand technical factors favour the Conservatives: there is probably still widespread working-class resentment of this Government because of its prices and incomes policy, Which will result in abstentions. by traditional Labour voters. At the same time the collapse in the Liberal vote — inevitable even without the trial of Mr Thorpe — must greatly benefit the Tories. Moreover, the floating vote, if it fjoats anywhere, must go rightwards. There is a tide of feeling not so much against 'socialism', which the Labour Parr), only doubtfully represents, but against all those things for which Labour certainly does bear the responsibilitY: public expenditure which continually increases in real terms and as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product; Punitive taxation; the encroachment of the State upon More and more areas of life. Beyond all that there is a perceptible feeling that this Uovernment has run its course. Such happens to most governments, and the electorate detects it. The Attlee ".d ministration had clearly run out of steam by 1951, as had (fie Macmillan-Home administration by 1974. It is fair to saY that the present Government never had much steam to run out of. If the election were postponed until 1979, as st°Ine members of the Cabinet undoubtedly wish, it is hard how Mr Callaghan will occupy himself between now clhuti next spring (or next autumn). The tone of this ministry ,,,as not been one of dynamic, even if misguided, social ,le Tange, but of lethargy and cynicism: gerrymandering in ku Celtic fringes with devolution Acts which no-one wants, i_eePing sectional interests quiet by bribery, hand-outs to :efficient industries, job-creation' schemes to mollify the t, vague promises to do something daring — abolishing L t'm eft. House of Lords or banning fox-hunting — to appease the opThe fact, though, that this Government could remain in nce for more than another year — until the end of its constitutional tether next November — raises the question of whether it should be able to do so. Quinquennial parliaments have long been the rule, but there is no reason at all why the term should not be shortened from five years. The old radical demand was for annual parliaments, which would certainly be too often, and too expensive, in the age of mass electioneering. But a triennial parliament, as advocated by Lord Rawlinson earlier this year, has much to commend it. The English constitution has passed through a lamentable process of atrophy in this century, with the result that power has passed away from Parliament and, in consequence, from the people. More frequent elections might not in themselves reverse the progress towards elective dictatorship, but should check it.
Conservatives are not usually given to constitutionmongering, and rightly so, holding that constitutions, like other 'schemes for political improvement are very laughable things', as Johnson put it. But a scheme for improvement may become necessary when the mechanism, formerly serviceable, has reached such a stage of decrepitude. Though the Conservative party has made no specific commitment to reform the machinery of government and has as a collectivity paid little attention to the matter, Mrs Thatcher would do well to state her intention at least to examine the question. Those Tories who have entered the debate on the constitution, such as Lords Hailsham and Home, have tended to dwell on the possibilities of a written constitution, a supreme court and a reformed, senatorial House of Lords. It would profit the Conservative party, and do service to the nation, if the question of the Lords was left to Labour with its pointless and possibly unpopular proposal to abolish the Upper House. The real problem lies elsewhere: in the House of Commons. The need is not for a revising second chamber, and Tories, oddly enough, play into Labour's.hands when they talk of the legislative utility of the Lords. The whole point is that there is too much legislation. What is needed is a smaller, more efficient Commons producing less laws but of better quality and resuming :ts proper role of controlling the executive.
Previous page
