Political Commentary
No substance in the shadows
Patrick Cosgrave
When he was last Leader of the Opposition Mr Heath, despite his inadequacies for that job — indeed, perhaps because, in those days, he was aware of his inadequacies, and strove to compensate for them — was wholly admirable in the way he brought on new men, and regularly gave less-than-senior Tory backbenchers opportunities to debate from the front bench. In his first Shadow Cabinet reshuffle after he had taken over the leadership of the party, he relegated several former ministers to the obscurity behind him, thus making a decisive break with the Macmillan-Douglas-Home era, and signalling the arrival of a new generation of men. True, his appointments were more than a trifle mechanistically conceived, and more than one critic pointed, grumbling, to Mr Heath's apparently excessive insistence that, when once a man was appointed to a particular shadow brief, he should not speak outside it: he once intervened personally to prevent the then Mr Quintin Hogg making a speech on the legal aspects of industrial relations; and his quarrels with Mr Powell, of course, began with that gentleman's refusal to be tied to the subject of defence. However, in spite of these blemishes, Mr Heath was pretty good at giving people a chance, and at encouraging his more senior shadow ministers (as, for example, Sir Keith Joseph) to gather around them teams of bright backbenchers to help in their work, with the fairly rosy prospect of eventual ministerial reward.
All this is a necessary preliminary to the question of why the Tory front bench now looks so unimaginative and feeble. Several critics and commentators were amazed to find in themselves, when Mr Wilson took over after the last election, a feeling that Labour ministers looked very good indeed, slipping into office with all the ease and comfort of a man settling down by his own fireside; while the Tories looked woebegone and wretched. Now, there was there, of course, something of the magic which office itself bestows: once you become a minister a mantle, for the moment, descends about your shoulders and you look impressive; once you cease to be a minister you are surrounded by none of the awe-making appurtenances of office, and seem to get cut down to size. But there was something more as well, something that seemed to magnify as the days went by, and Mr Heath made his shadow dispositions.
Not all of it was by any means due to the incapacity of the men he chose to speak from the front bench: it had, rather, to do with the projection of their futures and the next election, and to do with the use Mr Heath made of the material of his disposal. Save for Sir Geoffrey Howe, no star has arrived to decorate the Tory firmament in the House of Commons since 1970: Mr Van Straubenzee, a rather unsuccessful junior minister has, quite inexplicably, been made Shadow Secretary of State for .Education, when Mr Norman St John-Stevas, who made such an excellent impression during his brief period as Minister of State to Mrs Thatcher, was available, and would have added much uplift and colour to the front bench; and of Mr Ian Gilmour it is too soon to tell how well he will do. No great effort, moreover, has been made to provide a full Shadow team, and we must decide day by day who are Mr Heath's preferred candidates for which ministerial jobs, as non-Shadow Cabinet speakers are chosen, debate by debate, to represent the front bench. Perhaps the most intriguing of all Mr Heath's dispositions concern three of his senior ministers in the last Cabinet — Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Mr Anthony Barber, and Sir Keith Joseph. Sir Alec continues, for the moment, as Shadow Foreign Secretary, while Mr Barber and Sir Keith have roving briefs, though the former's is only temporary, pending his retirement at the next election. Sir Keith, it is said, declined a formal portfolio, wishing to do some fresh thinking himself and, so his admirers hope, return to the business of trying to reconcile generally accepted social priorities with sensible economic policies in which work he cut such a distinguished figure before the 1970 campaign.
It will not do. Then there is the curious case of the Shadow Chancellorship. Mr Robert Carr is in all respects an admirable man, and in many an admirable politician. In his own quiet way he made one or two highly effective contributions to the last Tory campaign, in particular in the course of a party political television broadcast which went some way to wash away the dreadful taste of the thuggish ad-man's film Lord Carrington did not see. But he has never had economic experience, nor shown any particular relish for a Treasury role. Yet he has been chosen to shadow Mr Healey. Now, a Leader of the Opposition with any particular instinct for the jugular would, I think, have worked it out that, for all that he has made a rapid improvement as an economic spokesman, and for all that he is now supported by the formidable apparatus of Treasury support, Mr Healey is still very inexperienced, and rather stolid and unimaginative as well, as the principal expounder of the Government's economic• policy: he would, I think, have chosen a formidable forensic mind ruthlessly to work away at Mr Healey and, if Sir Keith were unavailable, that could only be Mrs Thatcher. She, unfortunately, has gone to shadow Mr Crosland, to whom Mr Carr would have made an excellent opposite number.
There are, I fear, two detectable influences running through these appointments and non-appointments. As the lamentable repeated commitment to a statutory incomes policy, the principal commitment on which the election was lost, indicates, the former govern
ment is still in a terrible state of shock and unable, in spite of the imminence of another election, to wrench themselves out of the intellectual strait-jacket in which they had, become imprisoned by last February. Behiri° this unwillingness seriously to change anything lies a depressing defeatism. Very fey/ Conservatives feel there is much chance oif winning the next election, being convinced that a re-run of 1964-66 is all that can 13.e expected in the present situation. There is therefore a strong disposition to soldier on' accept a conclusive defeat with more or less grace, and then have a rapid and radical reshuffle of the cards at the top of the Clad dropping Mr Heath and perhaps his closest allies and making a fresh start. The defeatisrn if not the suggestions as to their own futures. appears to have afflicted Mr Heath and hi,,s senior colleagues. At the same time Mr Heat' himself has constructed his Shadow Cabinet with more regard to the duty of an opposition to oppose: Mrs Thatcher, on this argument, i5 not Shadow Chancellor because of her di5.. nositinn still to consider valid the econornic philosophy of the 1970 campaign, and an,Y,, inclination on her part to expound it coin' open a serious wound in Mr Heath's side. A! long, moreover, as the 1974 team can be kecu together, doing more or less the same jobs, ill so far as that is possible (Lord Carrington, f°', example, has had to drop out, since it is iny possible to have a senior opposition spokes, man with a particular portfolio in the Hons` of Lords), so long can the leader remain etl" trenched both in his job and in the attitudes, of 1970, to which he is now clinging with all his wonted stubbornness.
Whatever the wisdom or unwisdom changing policies or leaders now — and there can be legitimate differences of opinion °ill that subject, there is no substitute for a sick ful, determined and authoritative parliament' tary opposition, especially in a parliamen; which, because of the nature of its comPos'. tion, will attract far more intense scrutioY than any since 1964. Of course, it can be answered that no opposition can demonstrate the required skill unless fundamental tions are settled and determined — and if 7 Heath's speech to the Conservative Centre Council is to be regarded as settling the questions, resting as it does on a blatant,1Ye false pretence that he is still standing by t"t policies of 1970, then the Tories can forget either effective opposition or any hope the., they might win the election — but there is,10' fact, a great deal intelligent politicians can o. given the right amount of freedom of action the Chamber, something which Mr Heath he' always been rather reluctant to concede.5' partly because he saw it as a challenge to bfl,f own authority, partly because he felt it al; not become the consistency and cohesior required of a modern opposition party. Then'
too, unless the Opposition is unitedly deter mined to vote against and attempt to brill!
down the Wilson Government, with all tbr consequences that success might entail, 0.1 such central strategic questions as the rope' of the Industrial Relations Act, much core mitment, daring, and intelligence will 175, needed in long-drawn-out committee sessiond as Labour Bill after Labour Bill is criticise.
and amended. Here there will be a splen d opportunity to bring forward new men (3115 the Tories must regard themselves 3,14, extremely fortunate in that the intake of 1,9pd contains a large number of especially gny young men, some of whom, like Mr T°"ii Newton, Mr Douglas Hurd and Mr CYf Townshend, are personally well known to Heath) to cut their teeth on Socialist legistly' tion. But it is all bound to be an extreole, difficult haul; and those young men will 04 firm and distinguished leadership in convilk tee. In general as opposed to particular Conservative front bench does not renlci convince as a body capable of providing s1.1 leadership.
Previous page
