POLITICAL COMMENTARY HUGH MACPHERSON
The phony war in the Commons has come to an end. In a sense much of political activity is a continuous phony war at the best of times. Men speak darkly of the consequences of the cataclysmic effect of a particular course of action, the Whips ponder gloomily the consequences, and some harsh words are spoken at the private meetings of the party concerned. These are in turn leaked to the outside world, and some particularly incensed member might even hint at disaffection in the House itself with scant regard to his career prospects — as the Whips will remind him. The whole situation is assessed by the party managers and if there is the remotest danger that a comfortable majority cannot be obtained by fair means or foul — which is a rarity — the matter is swiftly forgotten. Normally the political process is one of careful advance soundings and the avoidance of booby traps.
This week the Commons has suddenly become aware that it is entering a period of total war on the question of Market entry. There is a slightly stunned recognition that all the chat in the smoking room is becoming a reality and that present day members will be responsible for matters as weighty as any in Parliamentary history. And all the ground rules have gone as confused warfare breaks out on both sides of the House. On Tuesday there was Mr Roger Moate, the new and efficient young Tory member for Faversham, who might be a younger Peter Walker, gathering all the parliamentary press corps together to say, with the kind of clear cut smile that should re-assure the most hostile Company meeting, that he was heading a new organisation to provide anti-market information because, apparently, the Central Office information was inaccurate and misleading.
Meanwhile Scottish Labour Members were forming themselves into an antimarket group to combat an equally strong pro-market group in what will, of course, be a Caledonian bloodletting which will brook no interference — least of all from over the border. Conservative party managers thought this a good time to announce a special " conference " of the National Union to " discuss " the market with Mr Heath which they hope will be the usual lovefeast whilst the Labour National Executive pondered a motion on Wednesday that would take Mr Wilson off one of the variety of hooks on which he is currently impaled. Whilst they were doing so some former Cabinet colleagues were lovingly sharpening the next hook to put him on. For no matter what the NEC might desire (and so confused are events that Mr Callaghan, no less, firmly backs Mr Wilson's view that the special conference should not take a decision on entry) the Special Conference will come out firmly against the Market. Wednesday's meeting of the NEC did not reduce the general confusion. Mr Wedgwood Berm wanted to put three specific questions to the Special Conference : whether or not it wanted to join the Common Market; whether it wanted a referendum; and whether it should postpone any decision until October. Eventually, by 11 votes to 9, it was decided by the N.E.C. that the conference should not make up its mind. But party chairman Ian Mikardo has already decided that if necessary he will accept the reference back of any N.E.C. report, and that if the conference wants to make up its mind, then maqe up its mind it shall.
Mr Wilson can, of course, stand aloof, but he will cut a faintly ridiculous Duke of Plaza Toro figure if he does. In the finest traditions of war correspondents one can only report some of the warmer exchanges for the great strategies to emerge.
There is, for example, the question of Mr George Thomson. The Sunday Mirror informed its readership that he had revealed "that integrity which will always be honoured in British life " because he announced that the Tory terms were those he would have recommended a Labour Caninet to accept when he was negotiating with the Market, and that he had raised the "Market debate high above the level of manoeuvring for Party or electoral advantage."
Perhaps it was too much to expect thip pop panegyric (which naturally embraced Mr Rippon) to remember the stern refusal of Douglas Jay to have anything to do with negotiations at the ultimate cost of a place in the Cabinet. At least, however, it could have acknowledged that a significant group within the Cabinet, who were opposed to joining Europe, were under the impression that Mr Thomson was only finding out the terms available. There never was any idea of what terms were "acceptable" and what were not. Far from Mr Thomson being above party maneouvring he has been doing his best to cause maximum embarrassment to the leaders of his own party because of his prior committment to the inter-party promarket group. One has the suspicion that when Mr Wilson has plucked the last hook out of himself Mr Thomson could provide a useful place to stick them out of harm's way.
The other hero of the Sunday Mirror editorial was, of course, Mr Geoffrey Rippon. He had not only shown "resilience and resource" but had added the qualities of humility instead of arrogance. I must sadly report that members of the Commonwealth have not yet detected these Franciscan qualities in the man who used to be our tough Brussels negotiator. Indeed, although New Zealand has put as decent a face on things as possible the Australians have decided to be a bit more difficult. Mr Anthony, the Australian Deputy PM responsible for Trade, has a trenchant turn of phrase and scant regard for diplomatic niceties. Before leaving Mr Rippon's office he said to our resilient patient, humbly resourceful negotiator, "I have not used the word ' betrayal ' — yet." With that he left.
Whilst the Generals compete for headlines the troops are indulging in some pretty rough exchanges. Sir Gerald Nabarro has ruthlessly pursued Mr James Prior on the question of the increase in prices since the election which the present food index shows to be 10.4 per cent over the last year, the biggest ever since the index was established in 1962. Sir Gerald will be one of the dangerous irregulars in the Market war that has now broken out. Not only does he intend using these figures to frighten colleagues about the prospect of facing an election after a successful entry but he has handed valuable weapons on a plate to Labour members who share his distaste for Market entry.
Pro-Marketeers in the Labour party are faced with the prospect of a year's consequential legislation in which already disgruntled constituency parties ask their member if he intends continuing to vote for increased prices and unemployment. Some Labour members see that as the crucial time for defeating entry and not the October vote on principle. Perhaps the present confused activity in the Commons is best summed up by the attitude of a Tory MP who drew attention to the difficulties Labour MPs would face in their constituencies on just the basis mentioned above. He then added "But, you know, they've got to drop this demand for a general election. They simply can't have a Tory bashing conference." In all truth the dogs of war have been let slip. And it must be confessed there is a good deal of havoc about as well.
Previous page
