Political commentary

The Tory early birds

Peter Paterson

So much for the Summer of Discontent, Mrs Thatcher must have been thinking as she flew back early from the Brussels summit to enjoy her second great triumph within a month from her jubilant party in the Commons. No sooner, it seemed, had the enemy laid down their arms in the Falklands than the National Union of Railwaymen, having vowed to unleash destruction and disaster at home, were trooping back to work. Eighteen hours on strike, no new offer from British Rail in sight, and they had surrendered.

We awaited the waving order papers, the stamping of feet, the chorus of 'Hear, hear!' from her adoring backbenchers. The further mortification of Mr Michael Foot. The `Gotcha!' headline no doubt being set in type at the offices of the Sun. Even the disrespectful sketch writers from the better papers would have to applaud the Iron Lady this time, instead of concentrating on the ruderies Mr Denis Skinner lays on for them every afternoon.

But that is not how it turned out. The Prime Minister slipped into the House with scarcely a murmur of welcome from her own side. The routine of Prime Minister's Questions began: would she list her engagements for the day? She did so, in modulated tones, for the benefit of Mr Tim Renton, a Tory backbencher who looks like an advertisement for muscular Christianity. What advice would she offer the members of the railway trade unions now that the NUR conference had decided to suspend the strike? he asked.

`Thank you for the good sense that prevailed...' responded Mrs Thatcher, somewhat lamely. Even Mr Foot was able to change the subject to what he called the latest 'paltry' forcasts of the progress of the economy, and a tired and washed out Mrs Thatcher could only stumble through a written brief like a lady in a Phyllosan commercial.

All just as well, really, since British Rail were to announce only hours later that, in their Box and Cox fashion, the national rail strike was now to be sponsored by the footplatemen's union, Aslef, instead of the NUR. Even exhaustion comes to Mrs That- cher's aid these days, for there is no doubt that a dance on the NUR's grave would have looked rather silly a little later in the day.

But there are Tories at Westminster who, before they knew that Aslef's Mr Ray Buckton had picked up the torch from Mr Sidney Weighell of the NUR, and was prepared to apply it to the extremities of the long-suffering railway travellers, were deep- ly disappointed to hear that peace had broken out on British Rail. They belong to the Oh-ye-of-little-faith school of politics, and they believe that in the wake of the Falklands war Mrs Thatcher's duty is to cast around for an issue on which she can appeal to the country at an early general election.

We know, of course, that the accepted wisdom is that Mrs Thatcher has no inten- tion of calling a 'premature' election, and is determined to carry on at least until the autumn of next year, and possibly into the spring of 1984. The possibility of an earlier election was first raised by Labour Party of- ficials and MPs choosing to frighten themselves or, they may have hoped, to shock their quarrelling colleagues into their senses, by presenting the spectre of a `khaki' election. (Incidentally, the word `khaki' in this context is surely being misap- plied: a khaki election involves not the-suc- cess or failure of an expeditionary force but a political appeal to returning soliders — as voters — back from a war and ready to swallow slogans such as 'homes fit for heroes to live in'.) There were, in fact, grounds for suspi- cion that the Tories might cash in on the `Falklands effect' in the wording of an in- discreet speech to his constituents by Mr Francis Pym. An assurance that the Prime Minister is far too honourable to behave in such an opportunistic fashion was swiftly forthcoming from her man of affairs, Mr Cecil Parkinson, amid loud gnashing of teeth from those Tories who saw the chance of a political lifetime disappearing.

Then, last week, up popped the SDP's den mother, Mrs Shirley Williams, to warn that the worsening industrial situation might be taken by the Conservatives as the excuse for an early election. The notion greatly excited the early-bird Tories. First there were the National Health strikes, which were bound to become highly un- popular if only the bungling Mr Norman Fowler could finally manage to separate the nurses from the Britannia Hospital crowd of ancillary workers organised by the TUC. Then there was Mr Arthur Scargill, desperately fishing in troubled waters in the hope of a final showdown with the hated Tory Government. There was also the £1 million campaign being mounted by the Trades Union Congress against the Govern- ment's industrial relations legislation, and the open encouragement to unlawful action by Mr Len Murray. And all brought together in a wonderful murky stew by the NUR going on strike for two or three mon- ths.

What could be better than a 'who governs?' election in which the tough, resourceful, courageous Mrs Thatcher, conqueror of the Argies, would ask for a

confirmation of her mandate to reduce the overweening and arrogant power of the trade unions? Far better than a transparent exploitation of the Falklands war, which in any case threw up no such challenge to Tory hegemony. A perfect way to harvest all the benefits of the war, it might be thought, while campaigning on quite a different issue. and yet another illustration that Mrs Thatcher can succeed where the incompe- tent Mr Edward Heath failed.

Then came the NUR's climbdown. No wonder the Tory benches were so subdued. Could it also, perhaps, explain Mrs That- cher's low-key performance at Tuesday's Question Time? Certainly not. The Prime Minister still has lots of faith, even to the point of continuing to invest some of it in her Chancellor. The litany of that faith trips off her tongue like the ten-times-table: 'We must keep inflation coming down, drive our interest rates down, keep our unit costs down, become competitive...' Mrs That- cher is in the vindication business. She only believes those economic forecasts which tell her that good times are just around the cor- ner. There may still be three million unemployed when April '84 comes along, but they will not have made their sacrifice in vain.

In any case, the trade union challenge no longer looks formidable, effective or un- constitutional, at any rate, not to the point where it can make Britain ungovernable, The collapse of the NUR strike is bound to have a demoralising effect on the rest of the trade union movement. It cuts some of the ground from beneath Mr Scargill's feet: why should we, the miners will ask themselves, act as shock troops for people like the NUR who cannot sustain a national strike for 24 hours? It isolates the NHS workers, who are in possession of a better offer than that made to the railwaymen. And it undermines the TUC campaign by suggesting that trade union leaders (Mr Weighell excepted) really are out of touch with their ordinary members and need to be forced to pay attention to their wishes. As to the defiance of the law on picketing and sympathy strikes, it should be remembered that when Parliament first legislated against the latter in 1927, it was not enforced for the nineteen years it was on the Statute Book.

An Aslef strike, however long it lasts, cannot act as a counterweight to the NUR's failure. It will be intensely unpopular with the public, and that unpopularity will rub off not only on the union movement as whole, but, justly or not, on the Labour Party as well. It is one thing to feel guilty about underpaid nurses, or even to feel strongly that more public investment would help to get the economy moving again. Public sympathy is not, however, likely to be forthcoming for the defence of a 1919 agreement against an arrangement which gives the drivers a shorter working week.

Those Tories who are anxious to rush Mrs Thatcher untimely to the polls must start praying for a more credible issue to present to the electorate.