Political Commentary
Lessons From The House
WATKINS By ALAN
DEBATES that have been billed in advance as great parliamentary occasions nearly always turn out to be disappointments and Tues- day's effort proved to be no exception. Everyone made a great deal of noise to begin with—Mr. Emanuel Shinwell, Mr. Archie Manuel and Mr. Cyril Bence particularly distinguishing them- selves in this regard, if in no other—but when Mr. Harold Wilson got around, at the end, of his speech, to mentioning casually that he was strengthening monopolies legislation, and also setting up a royal commission on the unions, I estimate that a third of the Conservatives had gone out for a cup of tea, while half the Labour mem- bers were asleep. At least they gave no outward and visible sign of being impressed one way or the other by the Prime Minister's revelations; though, tope fair, they had already had to endure twenty- five minutes of Mr. Wilson on aircraft (which no longer have easily remembered names, but are instead identified by complicated combinations of figures and letters)!
Nevertheless, though these parliaMentary set pieces may disappoint the seekers after truth in the public galleries—the press gallery has long ago been disenchanted—they do fufil some useful functions. They give a good indication, in the first place, of the general state of feeling on the back benches. And, secondly, they put the two party leaders on display in an easily comparable form.
So far as the back-benchers are concerned, the surprising fact is that there is no real bitterness on either side. When Sir Rolf Dudley-Williams and Mr. Bernard Braine repeatedly held up Mr. Wilson's speech with would-be points of order there were, of course, loud and angry noises from the Labour benches. `Siddown,' yelled Mr. Shin- well and his friends in a manner that would have been a credit to Sir ,Walter Bromley-Davenport himself. 'Name hini,' they demanded of the Deputy Speaker; and, when Sir Rolf and Mr. Braine showed no signs of desisting, 'Chuck him out.' The very phrases should give some clue to the spirit in which these suggestions were offered; and if confirmation were needed one had only to look at the faces of Mr. Shinwell and his allies. Were they angry? Not a bit of it. Why, they were enjoying the performance just as much as the Conservative interruptets.
Nor is this merely an impression which has been gathered from Tuesday's debate. Talk to back-benchers, of either party, and you will find them quite remarkably good-humoured about the opposite side. The reason is probably that the Government's tiny majority, and the consequent possibility of an early election (whatever Mr. Wilson may say), have produced an effect opposite to what was expected. Living dangerously has not made ordinary MPs jumpy and irritable with one another. Instead it has made them feel part of a family who are all in the same leaky boat. It is rather like the days of the blitz. And it may be a sign of these new, comradely times that the two party leaders are referred to, not as 'the PM' or `the old man,' but as Harold and Alec.
In the case of Sir Alec, however, there is no escaping the fact that his name is pronounced in slightly patronising tones, particularly by some of the younger members. Oddly enough, the Leyton result seems to have done little if anything to re- establish his leadership. Indeed the Conservative view of Leyton is that it is extremely funny; a joke played by a malign fate on the unhappy Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker.
Neither did Sir Alec really confirm his leader- ship in Tuesday's debate. At times, it is true, it seemed that he was going to start making a very good speech; but then, somehow,, something would go wrong; and poor Sir Alec was back where he started. Why, for instance, does he have
to use such phrases as 'I have pointed out time and again' and `I must say' and 'I shall require detail: . . . '?And why, if he must hesitate, does ht hesitate in the wrong places, as in the sentence 'Now, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people were , • et
. . . deceived by this'? Sir Alec was here referring to the Labour Party's promises on home loans and he spoilt a perfectly good case not, only by hesitations but by producing, apparently in all seriousness, a curious anecdote about a friend of his who had written to Mr. George Brown.
It may be that S:r Alec's Hampstead speech v‘ ill alter matters. Certainly it was necessary for him to make some declaration of intent. But Lord Blakenham's recommendations on the selection of a new leader which, so far as can be gathered, pro- vide for a straight vote by Conservative MPs— these recommendations are bound to reopen the question of the succession. There arc trying times ahead, and clearly Sir Alec's hope is to stick things out.
But how did Mr. Wilson emerge from Tues day's debate? It cannot be pretended that hi made a very inspiring speech either. In ant respect he has improved since he first became Prime Minister: he has lost the habit of inter rupting Opposition front-benchers whenever the opportunity presents itself. Yet Mr. Wilson has still to show that he can make a great prime ministerial speech. His tribute to Sir Winston Churchill demonstrated that, outside normal political debate, he can be very impres,ive in deed : but once he is at the dispatch hos!; on an ordinary House of Commons occasion all the tricks he learnt as shadow Chancellor are on view. Moreover, there is this change for thy' worse: Mr. Wilson is not nearly as entertaining as he used to be in those carefree days. The gain in gravitas, such as it is, is not sufficient to corn pcnsate for the loss in wit. In Tuesday's speed there was one passable joke—his description the Conservative, front-benchers' performances a 'a prolonged Tory selection conference \\ ithou the wives.' The reason for Mr. Wilson's Icss ga: speeches is probably one of time. As Prim Minister he is simply too busy to think up joke in the way he did, late at night, by the fireside o No. 12 Southway.
However, there is a more fundamenta criticism to be made of Mr. Wilson's speech. Th, section which dealt with the future of the TSR2' aircraft typified the major fault of this Govern- ment. With the utmost. solemnity, Mr. Wilson announced that he and his colleagues were going to make a decision. What that decision would finally turn out to be, ah, who could tell? On the one hand, of course . . . but, on the other !lane, well, there were other factors to be taken into consideration, and, let there be no doubt, those factors would be carefully balanced and weighed. . . . And so on. It is all very well for Mr. Wilson to say he has lost sleep worrying about the future of the TSR2. This, after all, is why he is Prime Minister and is paid £14,000 a year. No doubt a few TSR2 workers, who are paid considerably less, have also lost some sleep. However sympathetic the Prime Minister may be towards them, his observations in the debate can- not have provided much reassurance.
And the criticism is wider than this. For \+ here the subject-matter of a political decision is some- , thing upon which public opinion can properly express itself—where it is university or law re- form, say—there is a case for giving notice of that decision. The TSR2 question is quite unlike this. To leave it suspended in the way Mr. Wilson has done can result in' nothing but harm. It. conies perilously close to being an abdication from government.
1
Previous page
