THE SPECTATOR
LABOUR SAVES THE TORIES
The Conservatives have the most amaz- ing luck. With three and a half million unemployed, a tired Government and an unpopular Prime Minister, they might have appeared set for electoral defeat. But now, just as Labour seemed to be consolidating its lead in the polls, it has come clean with a series of policies so devastatingly awful that the Tories can hope once more. We are accustomed by now to policies directed vindictively against particular groups the promise to nationalise all private schools, the abolition of bloodsports and to those, like 'anti-racism', designed to give special privileges to the groups which Labour favours. These and their like are now part of Labour's permanent political baggage. But over the past few months, the more central policies on which the next election will be fought have also emerged. We know roughly where Labour stands on trade unions, taxation and defence.
However agreeably expressed and with whatever waving of roses and statements of friendly intent, Labour's policy towards the trade unions is not materially different from that which strangled it in office in the 1970s. The secret ballot is now admitted as a part of the life of unions, but so circum- scribed as not to be depended upon. Legal immunities which the present Government has removed will be restored. Mass picket- ing and blacking will once more be unim- peded. The 'consensus' achieved between Labour and the union leaders about pay and economic policy has even fewer guarantees than previous 'social contracts'.
In the area of taxation and spending, Labour's commitments literally do not add up. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr John MacGregor, has had an enjoyable time feeding Mr Hattersley's figures into his computer and producing promised in- creases in spending of £28 billion. Mr Hattersley has then run round trying to persuade Mr Michael. Meacher, his party's social services spokesman, to make rather less extravagant promises. He has devoted his energies to arguing that all that is needed is to tax the 'rich' — those earning more than £27,000 per annum — at the levels which applied before Mrs Thatcher came to office in 1979. As Andrew Gimson shows on page nine, such a policy would scarcely begin to raise the amount which Labour needs, even if it did manage to recoup the amount expected. Either Labour would not implement its promised spending programmes or it would increase general tax rates very substantially indeed. As for defence, Mr Kinnock has decided to disdain compromise. He will definitely get rid of Britain's independent nuclear deterreht and he will equally definitely insist on the removal of all American nuclear weapons from British land and waters. He will keep Britain in Nato while simultaneously refusing the protection of the nuclear 'umbrella'. In addition to these amazing promises, Labour also continues to offer the prospect of confusion. Mr Denis Healey tried to claim on Panorama that American missiles would not neces- sarily be removed from Britain, and even his repudiation of these remarks the fol- lowing day has not cleared the matter up. So at the next election, Labour will either be promising nuclear surrender or reveal- ing the divisions which sapped its fight in 1983, or both.
This, then, is the Conservatives' great chance. They can now plan to fight a good, straightforward election, trading on the fear of Labour. Do you want a union- dominated, highly taxed, defenceless Bri- tain, they will ask, Or Britain strong and free? Do you want a pipsqueak who has never held office to hand away Britain's strongest weapon as his first act, or do you want a Prime Minister with experience, international standing and the determina- tion to defend her country at all costs? You are wondering about the SDP/Liberal Alliance? Well, many of them are perfectly nice people, but by voting fOr them ydu will be letting Labour in. It is all beautifully simple, and it is just the sort of election which Mrs Thatcher loves to fight.
In any election where there is doubt in voters' minds, where there seem to be two or more sides to every question, where there are decent sensible men in all corners of the ring, Mrs Thatcher is at a great disadvantage. Her certainties sound stri- dent, her confidence misplaced. But when there is a sharp dividing line, she is at her best. In the next election she will be able to argue once again that there is only one way, and, with Labour in prospect, many voters will not dare to disagree with her.
All of which goes to confirm that the Conservatives should pay no attention to those among them who now demand a period of conciliation. How could Tories be conciliatory towards a policy of neutral- ist socialism? Because, in opinion polls, people have sometimes been happy to say that they would prefer a higher standard of public services to tax cuts, some have concluded that taxes should not be cut again before the election. This is a mistake, probably a fatal one. As they reveal their plans, both Alliance and Labour (the former with much greater honesty than the latter) have had to admit that they involve tax increases. At the same time, the Conservatives are working towards a Very substantial cut in the standard rate. If this can be reconciled with financial prudence, it is unbeatable.
As a matter of fact, it will be sad if Mrs Thatcher does get away with the sort of election outlined above. The Governinent deserves to be harried for its failure in all areas of the welfare state, its lack of originality outside one of two areas of economic and industrial policy. But so long as we have an opposition unworthy of its role, that harrying cannot take place.
Previous page
