Political Commentary
BY HENRY FAIRLIE MUCH too much fuss is being made about the Govern- ment's decision to abolish all purchase tax on non- woollen and domestic textiles. It is extremely doubt- ful whether it will swing any significant number of votes one way or the other, in spite of Mr. Herbert Morrison's ponderous warning that 'it will be known in the County Palatine who are the authors of this change.' The idea that the electors of Lancashire vote only, or even primarily, about Lancashire matters is, I am convinced, an illusion fostered by Lancashire MPs. To the cotton industry it is a useful illusion, enabling the industry to form, through the terrified Lancashire MPs, a Powerful pressure-group, one of the most powerful lobbies in British politics today. The effect of this lobby has been to prevent any Government (Conservative or Labour) from taking the drastic action which is needed to make one of the most Inefficient industries in the country viable.
But I do not think there is any evidence that at election time the electors of Lancashire identify themselves with an industry which may employ some of them, but for which they have no affection or respect. (Ask a mill-worker or a mill-girl in Darwen what he or she votes about, and I think the state of the cotton Industry will be found to be very low on the list.) Britain is politically a far more homogeneous country than is sometimes remembered. and the voters of Lancashire, reading papers which are edited from London, watching television pro- grammes which are transmitted from Lime Grove, think very much in the same way as the voters of London. Have a look, for example, at the last Lancashire by-election result : a by- election which was held when doubts and misgivings in Lanca- shire were at their strongest, and when the Government had announced no concessions to the cotton industry at all. The result showed that the swing (in favour of the Government) in Lancashire did not significantly differ from that in other parts of the country. The so-called issues at elections are no more than the driftwood on the surface. The causes of movements In public opinion lie many fathoms deeper.
There seem to me to be only two facts which one can really take as firm guides. The first is that the swing of the pendulum is real : since 1867 no party (except the Liberal Party in 1910) has ever won more than two successive elections. A movement of public opinion, in fact, takes place, whatever the promises in the programmes, whatever the supposed issues, whatever a party's record in office. The second fact is that this movement can be traced in every section of the electorate : the rich and the poor, the male and the female, the old and the young. If the lower income groups show a swing to the Left, there will be a similar swing to the Left in the upper income groups. though not necessarily so marked. In short, the movement of public opinion exists quite apart from the ephemera of issues. programmes and party behaviour, and also quite apart from considerations of class, occupation or age. My own belief is that the explanation lies in the nature of the phenomenon which we call public opinion. Public opinion seems to me a shorthand description of what can—a little more precisely— be called the prevailing atmosphere or climate of the time.
Keynes once wrote of the difference between what he called 'Inside' or informed opinion and public opinion. 'Inside' opinion is the opinion of politicians, academics, civil servants, Journalists, and so on. It is always far ahead of public opinion, but it 'gradually percolates to wider and wider circles.' These wider circles are 'susceptible, in time, to argument, cothmon sense or self-interest.' This point seems to me to be valid. Intellectual ideas obviously contribute a lot to the formation of public—or electoral—opinion. Fabianism clearly influenced the result in 1906 and Keynesism the result in 1945. But intel- lectual ideas are not all. As Keynes himself acknowledged, factors like self-interest intrude. As this month's number of Socialist Commentary notes : 'On the whole the country is— and feels—more prosperous.' It is my belief that intellectual ideas and self-interest have combined to produce a climate of opinion which will produce a substantial Conservative victory.
Meanwhile, I have before me the manifesto of the National Liberal Party, which seeks to explain, among other things, why 'the National Liberals have aligned themselves with the modern Conservative Party.' (I like the use of the word 'modern'; it leaves us in no doubt that the National Liberals did not really like the Conservatives before the younger Pitt.) As I read it I could not recall the name of one National Liberal Member of Parliament, so I consulted the National Liberal Organisation in London. The answer I was given was that there are now no National Liberal Members of Parliament. Why, then, have a manifesto? The answer is that there is a Liberal-Unionist group in the House of Commons. This is composed of twenty members who are variously known as Conservative and Liberal, Liberal and Conservative, Conserva- tive and National Liberal, and National Liberal and Conserva- tive. The common factor which unites them is that they have all been adopted in their constituencies by combined Con- servative and National Liberal associations. Apart from having a Whip of their own, which gives Sir Herbert Butcher some- thing to do, they have no other distinctive identity. Why, then, again, produce a National Liberal manifesto? The answer is that 'outside Parliament the National Liberal Council focuses and expresses the views of those Liberals who believe in com- bined action.' The short word for it is hoodwinking.
I am interested to see that Mr. Konni Zilliacus has been adopted as Labour candidate for what, in the absence of a Conservative landslide, must be considered a safe seat. Mr. Zilliacus is a very lovable personality, and he was the most popular member that Gateshead has had for many a long year. He was popular in spite of the fact that he always tends to make speeches which last for about two hours, starting with his early days in Geneva and working steadily through every meeting of the League of Nations up to 1939. His letters to the New Statesman are equally long, and one can imagine Mr. Basil K. Martin saying : 'Another letter from Konni: we'll have to put the letters down into smaller type this week.' But what I don't understand is why Mr. Zilliacus, a man of independent views, wishes to get elected as Labour Member of Parliament only to be expelled again. It is an odd form of masochism. One Labour member who will not be expelled is Mr. James Callaghan, who perked up in the House on Monday. Here is a youthful politician who has developed every political antenna. He exploits his few months on the lower deck merci- lessly : if one took him seriously one would assume he had spent years stripped to the waist in the boiler-room. In con- versation he has-a straightforward BBC accent. On the public platform he adopts an accent which is clearly meant to indicate that he is one of the boys. What more do you want to know?
Previous page
