Political Commentary
Reflections on the campaign
Patrick Cosgrave
It has been the strangest and most difficult of campaigns for the reporter to get hold of: apart from the two morning press conferences there has been, in comparison with general elections, no coherence to it at all. For example, during general election campaigns, I like to take two longish trips out of London in company with the leader of each main party; and I try to choose a particularly interesting local area to go to each time. Who could one have followed during the last few weeks; and in what area would one have found an interest or a coherence which would be remotely like that of either the Labour or the Conservative Party at general election time?
The other thing that has made for strangeness has been the press and television coverage of the campaign. The difficulties of the TV people, in particular, are easy to appreciate. Again, though both sides in the campaign worked under umbrella organisations, neither of these had the natural authority enjoyed by Central Office or Transport House during a general election; and neither could field regularly for TV programmes so naturally heavyweight a line-up as the average Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet. Indeed, until the Prime Minister relaxed his ban on confrontations between ministers, it was often impossible to balance a discussion at all. And, of course, for both TV and the press it must have been an enormous relief for the pro-Marketeers to be able virtually to ignore the speeches of the greatest antiof them all, Mr Enoch Powell, the quality of whose oratory and argument has remained unimpaired but who — up to the time of writing at least — has gone virtually unreported, his contribution being examined intelligently only by Mr Martin Walker in the Guardian.
Where will it all leave us? The Norwegians say that politics in their country have never been the same since their referendum, but that was principally because the country voted 'No'. Since continued membership of the EEC is, in Britain an essentially Establishment cause, it follows that the bigger the 'Yes' vote the more unperturbed the Establishment would be. Indeed — and this despite his denial of the accusation that he was thinking about coalition — Mr Prentice's last weekend speech indicates that the Establishment and its lackeys are already thinking of further co-operation, in other fields, once the referendum is over. There has probably grown up, at lower levels as well, an idea of a more continuing comradeship on the pro rather than on the anti side. This is not difficult to explain: so far as I can see there were many examples of excellent comradeship between right and left in the anti-Market camp, but both sides could see clearly that their alliance was for a single purpose only, and never lost their sense of the sharp identity of their own individual political philosophies. On the pro-Market side, one observed that many of the activists, from both major parties, were people without any very distinctive view of policy or political philosophy: once they overcame instinctive prejudices about working with somebody from the opposing party a great deal was found in common, especially a sense of total nullity about domestic policy. This was very evident in discussions Professor Anthony King had last Saturday morning with Market activists in Brent on his BBC Radio 4 programme. One of the Conservative ladies, in particular, was clearly more than eager to think about the possibility of continuing co-opera
tion with her pro-European Labour fellowworkers. This is a feeling — a feeling of declining party identification — that must be feared by any political leader seeking to project a sharper or clearer image, and especially by Mrs Thatcher.
The proponents of coalition will be encouraged by a large 'Yes' vote, for that will fortify such trends, and humiliate the Labour Left. A narrow 'Yes' vote, especially if it is on a small poll, will endanger the unity of the Labour Party, for there is growing evidence — especially from Mr Jack Jones — that the Left will not accept such a verdict as final, preferring, with some real irony, to insist on the full-hearted consent which was Mr Heath's pledge of so long ago. A 'No' vote wilt, of course, throw all patterns of politics into confusion.
If there were to be a high poll and a substantial 'No' vote then, of course, it is inconceivable that Parliament would refuse to enact the will of the people. Indeed, however narrow the 'No' majority it is, on the whole, unlikely that Parliament would refuse to acknowledge it, though there would undoubtedly be some who would try to impose their will even then. A narrow 'No' vote would impose a great test on Mrs Thatcher. She has done her level best not to become involved in this campaign for, though a pro-European, she is a singularly lukewarm one, and is more concerned with British domestic policy than with any continental entanglement. Any `No' vote other than an overwhelming one, would dishearten, discourage and deeply disappoint important elements in either parliamentary
party, but only in the Conservative Party would the Leader be in any real difficulties. The parliamentary Conservative Party contains many dedicated pro-Europeans, and the habit of years has made it virtually impossible for most of the parliamentary party to think of Britain as other than an EEC member. Mrs Thatcher, however, though a brilliant parliamentarian, is essentially a popular leader, and all her chances in the next election depend on her ability to convince the country, and especially those parts of the country likely to produce a substantial 'No' vote, of her capacity to govern and her will to do the sort of thing they favour. If she were to succumb to the siren attractions of the pro-Europeans and vote against the people's will — and 1 cannot imagine her doing that, despite a singularly ambiguous passage in a letter to the Prime Minister on the subject — she would seriously endanger the future of the power base she is hoping to build. On the other hand, were she to support Mr Wilson in withdrawal legislation, there would be, a number of Conservatives — led, perforce, by Mr Heath — who would decline to follow her, and she would be in the embarrassing position of having to do what Mr Wilson has already done, and give liberty to a possibly large number of her followers to dissent from the party whip.
In the different combinations likely to be produced by different results, the most obvious potential is, therefore, for splits, large or small, in both the main parties. Whatever happens, Mr Wilson will find all his skills as a party manager most severely tested. Mrs Thatcher is likely to find the greatest difficulty in handling a very substantial pro-vote: such a result will greatly enhance the national prestige of Mr Heath, and the overwhelmingly pro-Market press is bound to cry him up at her expense. It would, after all, be his first success in several years; it would minister balm to his ego and the egos of his friends; it would encourage various snipers at Mrs Thatcher, and perhaps most notably the Times; and it would — she having played so small a part in the campaign — weaken her authority in the face of the plotting against her that continues within her own party.
What, though, is going to be the result? In the second last week of the campaign the antiMarketeers were rather down in the mouth; and the supporters of continued membership rather triumphant. It was all the more strange, then, that it was the pro-Market campaign that was strident and vulgar in tone, and the antiwhich was calm and reasoned. Perhaps their very plurality in the polls worried the Marketeers, as they looked back on the last three general election results. And, last weekend, there were the beginnings of signs that the anti-Marketeers were about to begin the kind of late run which marked the campaigns of Mr Heath in 1970 and Mr Wilson in 1974. The first indication was the sudden and late intervention in the campaign of Mr Eric Varley, the Secretary of State for Energy. Nobody could accuse Varley, a civilised and peaceful man, of being an extremist, and to hear his calm and reasonable voice tell us that, if Britain were to remain within the EEC, she would lose control over North Sea oil and gas was a heartening fillip for the opponents of British membership.
It is an incredibly difficult result to forecast, especially since the whole organisation of the affair is so unparalleled in our political history. The most significant figure in the polls appears to me, however, to be the number of 'Don't knows'. These are likely to be of greater significance than in a general election: there, there is probably a residual attraction among them to one of the parties, and, more often than not, they have ended by dividing to the parties in the same proportions as the rest of the electorate. This time, I fancy, they will incline massively one way or the other. If they incline to the pro-Market side, there will be a huge majority for staying in; if to the antia narrow but definite majority for coming out. It will, 1 believe, be the latter.
Previous page
