Mr. Wilson's Weekend

From RUPERT HALE

STOCKHOLM

MEMBERS of the British Labour party often admire the Swedish Social Democrats who, besides manipulating society successfully to their own ends, have contrived to remain in power for thirty-three years, mostly with a majority little larger than their own. Indeed, leading Social Democrats count Mr. Wilson among their more ardent admirers, and not surprisingly he is said to be exceedingly interested in their methods.

This weekend, Mr. Wilson is staying with the Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Tage Erlander. It is his second visit within a year. He is actually joining a cosmopolitan house party of Social Democrats at Mr. Erlander's country home at Harpsund, a little way out of Stockholm. This gathering is an annual event, a sort of informal socialist international. There could scarcely be a more suitable setting for Mr. Wilson to inquire into Swedish methods, for `Harpsund' has come to stand in Sweden for a new way of rule by consultation which approximates to an ingenious method of circumventing parliament.

Sweden is frequently presented as the model of industrial sanity, with collective bargaining, reasonable unions, a wages policy—and no wild.- at strikes. This is mostly true, but it has its price, which is the laming of parliament and the renunciation by industry of political influence. Industrial peace in Sweden is a concordat in which business pays for the trade unions' co- operation by acquiescing in the removal of fiscal matters from parliament. Whenever difficult questions have to be thrashed out, leading busi- nessmen are invited to Harpsund, where, in the agreeable surroundings of an haut bourgeois country seat, taxes are argued and matters are settled.

All taxation is discussed at Harpsund, with businessmen often called in to test their reactions to the next budget. It frequently happens that too-punitive taxation is tempered before be- coming a political liability; equally often in- dustrial leaders find themselves worsted in the bargaining, with redress impossible. Once de- cided at Harpsund, a matter is as good as law. Swedish parliamentary procedure ensures that majorities are constant, whatever the circum- stances, with no trickery of divisions, members in ambush, and surprise government defeats. Perhaps this explains the mournful air of rubber- stamping which so often pervades Swedish par- liamentary debate.

The effect of what Swedes have dubbed `Harpsund Democracy' has been to remove eco- nomic issue from parliament, to the chagrin of the opposition parties. Sweden provides clear support for the thesis that politics are dead and only economics remain. Of issues of state and principle, the Swedish electorate no longer knows much; prosperity is their only interest; and with the substance of debate withdrawn, parliament has lost its marrow.

Decades of convenience have made indus- trialists fearful of antagonising the government and turned them into complaisant allies. They dis- courage opposition leaders from raising awk- ward issues, and politicians therefore find that they have nothing to talk about. Businessmen are even fearful of being associated with this or that party, and are increasingly reluctant to contribute to funds: opposition leaders have to spend much of their time begging for support. It is the logical conclusion of raising important matters 'above party.'

For an avowedly Marxist party, the Swedish Social Democrats are remarkably lukewarm nationalisers. They have taken over one firm in the past thirty years, the LKAB iron mines at Kiruna, and over 95 per cent of the country's industry is still in private hands. And yet the Swedish government has a far tighter grip on the national economy than the Labour party can hope 'to achieve for a long time, and this without controversy and bitterness.

Rigorous central planning and control of the capital market, together with an active direction of the labour market, ensure for the govern- ment effective surveillance of industry. It en- courages amalgamations—it knows that it is better to deal with a few big men than many small ones—and it looks upon the managerial revolution with favour. Its economists believe that, in the' long run, the consequent estrange- ment of capital and management will turn the ownership of shares into an academic question.

Meanwhile, the government is preparing to become a militant investor by way of pensions, which, it will be able to demonstrate to Mr.

Wilson, are perfectly adapted to the acquisition of capital, besides being a concealed kind of forced savings.

These moneys are to be invested in existing enterprises, both public and private, and in founding new nationalised industries. Although the fund is to be administered by a board of governors drawn from business and politics, and the present rules say that investment must avoid voting shares and direct influence in private com- panies, many critics of the scheme fear that these

will soon be dead letters. In any case, merely to control so large a part of the• capital market is power enough. It suggests a means of achiev- ing the aims of nationalisation while avoiding its burdens.

The Social Democrats have managed to asso- ciate their image with full employment and pros- perity, and they have induced a political climate in which the electorate are half-unwilling to unseat them for fear of disturbing present good.

They seem certain of just over 50 per cent of the votes they need for as long as they care to rule. Their use of taxation to distribute income, and their egalitarianism, are little different from those of their counterparts in other countries. But Mr. Wilson will doubtless have something to learn at Harpsund about the day-to-day management of politics. Although they have ruled for thirty-three years, the Swedish Social Democrats have not done so alone for all that time. Apart from a national government during

the last war, they have ruled in coalition with the Agrarians. The Swedish multi-party system has allowed them great scope for manoeuvre and for applying the maxim `divide and rule.' They have allied themselves to radical opinion outside their own ranks, so that the real dividing line in Swedish politics runs not between Social Demodrats and Liberals, but somewhere through the Liberal party. It is an enviable position in which to be, and shows much political cunning. In this, even Mr. Wilson will have to yield pre- cedence to his host this weekend.