Gaitskell Emergent
FAIRLIE By HENRY 1HE most important domestic political fact in the past year has been the emergence of Mr. Hugh Gaitskell as the accepted alternative Prime Minister and, therefore, of the. Labour Party as the accepted alternative government. It is far more important than any other political event at home, because: (1) it faces the Govern- ment with a real political challenge such as it has not had to face since it was returned to power in 1951; (2) it makes it unlikely that the Liberal re- vival will, at a general election, be sufficient to carry forward Mr. Grimond's dream of 'a new radical party'; and (3) it reasserts the dynamic principle of the two-party system: that people are interested more in the government than in recording their opinions or making protests. For these reasons the revival of the Labour Party is aot only much more real than the revival of the Liberal Party but also much more healthy. What-, ever else the swing to the Labour Party may be, it cannot be called frivolous: it inn swing to one of the great established bodies of opinion and interest in the country.
Mr. Gaitskell is at last reaping the rewards of the courageous (and also brilliant) campaign which he fought inside his own party after the 1959 general election. He then gave all the evi- dence that seemed to be needed of his political toughness and of his ability, even on the trickiest ground, to retain his hold over his party.
But he gave evidence also of something even more important: evidence that he possesses that vital instinct which alone enables a Labour Party leader to keep the party inside the govern- ing tradition of politics. The Labour Party, Mr. Gaitskell asserted again and again, and eventually triumphantly, must keep in touch with the realities of the nation's life, must pay atten- tion to the nation's commitments, to its in- escapable physical conditions, and to its habits of mind and behaviour. It is because of this that he now stands as a potential Prime Minister.
All of this, I think, can be taken as generally agreed. The doubt arose when he sat down after his speech to the Labour Party Conference in October. To someone who is as convinced a European as I am (I do not think there is any other issue which matters in Britain at the moment more than that we should enter the Common Market during the coming year) the speech was more than a shock: it seemed almost a betrayal. To listen to all that one has admired in Mr. Gaitskell over the years—the skill in rational argument, the combination of a power- ful intellect and a controlled passion, the warmth of his ideas and the warmth of his personality- being employed in defence of 'a thousand years of history,' to call forth images of Gallipoli and Vimy Ridge, to excite a pretty chauvinism—this was a bitter agony. It was no less of an agony to listen to his former detractors in the party crow- ing over his body after the speech, and still speak- ing to him with an unloving and unlovable spite.
In that moment I (and not I alone among his former admirers) underestimated Mr. Gaitskell. I still believe he was wrong to use the arguments he did, and I am sure he cannot be happy now with all the phrases which he let fall. I am still shocked that he should have so easily curried favour in the elements in his party which he must despise. But very quickly, after that speech; he returned in the House of Commons to his natural equilibrium. Very quickly he was able to give the (by then much needed) assurance that he was as faithful to the NATO alliance as ever.
If it were not for the dividing issue of Europe, Mr. Gaitskell would 'be the politician today likeliest on his own account to win the convic- tions and support of those concerned with the quality of British public life. He is Britain's only answer to President Kennedy. The fact that the British electors are beginning to grasp this fact is the essence of his threat to the Conservatives. But the Common Market is, I believe, a dividing issue. Just as supporters of Gladstone were forced to divide themselves from him on the issue of Home Rule, so 1 believe that not even the quality of the government which Mr. Gait- skell might provide can make one overlook the danger that he and his party could turn their backs on our only and last hope of coming to terms with the modern world. This is the lesson which the Conservatives must now learn from his emergence as a great potential statesman. Mr. Gaitskell can be de- feated at the next general election only by pre- senting Britain's entry into Europe as the neces- sary national adventure which will restore faith and purpose.
When one commented, after Mr. Gaitskell's speech in October, that he had almost certainly lost the election by it, how was one to know that the Conservative leaders would suddenly become timid about their own convictions, that the issue of the Common Market would be allowed to languish and go sour? However, there has been a considerable amount of evidence in the past fortnight (there was more political activity over the Christmas holidays this year than for many a year) that the supporters of the Common Market in the Government and Conservative Party, who had been increasingly depressed throughout De- cember, have suddenly regained much of their confidetrce and determination. As far as I can trace it, this seems to stem from a rumour from the highest level that the negotiations will be successfully concluded in the next three months.
But my concern here is with the Labour Party. Apart from the assertion by Mr. Gaitskell of his own personality, the Labour Party, too, has dis- covered a new unity and determination. Even Mr. George Brown is now speaking with a con- vincing instead of a phrenetic confidence; Mr. Harold Wilson begins to look—well, a pocket statesman; and Mr. Callaghan is quite ob- viously a potential vote-winner of surprising weight.
Moreover, its attitudes, especially to domestic problems, have now cohered into a general out- look which is recognisably relevant to the nation's needs and the nation's mood. The general election is by no means in its hands yet; the Conservative Party has not even begun to de- ploy either its policy or its propaganda to the needs of vote-getting. But it is there : a great party, with the resources of a great move- ment behind it, representing forces and interests which are deeply rooted in the nation's life. If 1963 sees the drawing of clear lines between it and the Conservative Party, so that the debate at the general election will be about real things and real differences, there will be health in our politics yet.
`Maybe you could sell it to a rich American Communist.'
Previous page
