Books
The slippery pole
Robert Blake
The Conservatives: A History from their Origins to 1965 edited by Lord Butler (Allen and Unwin £7.50) The Tory Leaders: Their Struggle for Power Nigel Fisher (Weidenfeld and Nicolson £5.95) People are much more interested in the Conservative Party than they were ten years ago. This is partly because it is no longer taken for granted as the 'natural party of government'. Although in office for sixty of the last ninety years the Conservatives have been in opposition for nine of the last thirteen. Their ideas and the alternatives they pose to the current assumptions of government, 'the consensus', have aroused the attention of historians, philosophers, and sociologists. There is another reason. Whatever the prospects of North Sea gas and its effects on the economy, there is a profound malaise in British society, a deep feeling that 'social democracy' has failed. Many Conservatives believe that the next Conservative administration, instead of trying to make social democracy work more efficiently, instead of tinkering with the existing machinery of state, should embark on a new course and seek new ideas which may question the very foundations of the Post-war consensus. This is the essence of the current debate. Is the Conservative Party there to do what Labour does, only more efficiently? Or is it there to do different things altogether? Is this the difference between the elements of Conservative thought represented by Mr Heath and Mr Prior on the one side, Mrs Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph on the other? Is it the Cause of the change of leadership? Neither of these books purports to answer this question. The Conservatives is a straightforward historical account written by four scholars, with a characteristically elegant and perceptive introduction and epilogue by Lord Butler. Sir Nigel Fisher's survey of the battles for the leadership of the party is largely a personal memoir of events in which he took part or which he knew about as a Conservative MP and member of the Executive of the 1922 Committee. Perhaps it could be fairly described as a source for future historians rather than as history, since the author was actively concerned especially in the latest of these struggles and could not have seen more than glimpses of the other side of the hill. But although the question of the proper role of the Conservative Party does not form an explicit part of either book there are implications about it in both. The debate between practice and principles, pragmatism and ideology, tactics-and strategy goes far back in Tory history. The experience which has shaped so much of the party's attitude was the great battle over the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, admirably dealt with in his contribution to The Conservatives by Professor Norman Gash whose two volume life of Peel is one of the great biographies of our time The apparent effect of Peel's decision was so damaging to the Party's fortunes that his successors have been ready to do almost anything rather than risk a repetition. It was the only occasion when the party split wide open on a question of principle. There often were to be serious tactical divisions and it is well to be reminded that Mr Heath was not the first leader to be ousted by a vote among Conservative MPs. Austen Chamberlain was similarly treated in 1922 at the Carlton Club. But the issue was not one of Conservative theology; it was a question of tactics for the next general election, and the argument has until very recently been conducted within those limits.
The parallel between Mr Heath and Sir Robert Peel has often been made. There is evidently a certain temperamental affinity. There must, one suspects, have been times when Mr Heath, like Peel, found party to be an 'odious servitude'; and like Peel he lacked the gift of geniality and bonhomie towards his supporters. But though one is tempted to draw analogies there are important differences. Peel was repudiated by his party because on a very clear question he decided that the national interest required him to take a course of action profoundly repugnant to his followers. Ramsay MacDonald did exactly the same in 1931. But, despite the subsequent debate about Conservative purposes, it is not at all obvious that Mr Heath was forced out on doctrinal grounds. It is quite tr6e, as Mr John Ramsden points out, in his excellent contribution to The Conservatives, that Mr Heath in 1965-6 was more concerned with means than ends. He wrote in Putting Britain Right Ahead: As I go around the country I find people are asking for an entirely fresh approach to the country's problems. They are looking for constructive policies — how we do things rather than what needs to be done.
This is a very significant quotation, and it does indeed raise the whole question in current debate about the Conservative Party — how or what? But the historian always has to beware of reading later developments back into the interpretation of earlier events. There was no serious dissent in 1966 from Mr Heath's interpretation of the Conservative role, nor was there serious dissent at the time of the leadership crisis.
The history of the contests for leadership, the theme of Sir Nigel Fisher's book and an important element in Lord Butler's, is one of personality and electoral fortune (perhaps the two are connected) rather than ideological differences. Electoral failure was not personalised in the heyday of the Victorian era. Lord Derby lost five general elections in succession but only retired from the scene because of gout, not a party revolt. Disraeli lost two out of three but was never challenged. Lord Salisbury (whom Dr Southgate in The Conservatives censures rather too severely in an otherwise admirable contribution) restored the party's for tunes, winning three out of five. But his nephew, Balfour, felt the blast of democracy. He lost three elections running and he was pushed out in circumstances similar to those of 1965 and 1975. His subsequent behaviour, however, resembled Sir Alec's.
Sir Nigel Fisher's account of the leadership crises of 1963, 1965 and 1975 is the most interesting part of his book. It is quite clear that ideology played little or no part in any of them. Sir Nigel himself stands on the 'left' — if the expression has any meaning in the Conservative spectrum. Margaret Thatcher is alleged to be on the 'right'. This sort of terminology has some significance perhaps at a constituency level but not much at the top. Sir Nigel first supported Edward du Cann and when he declined to run battled for Margaret Thatcher with whom he is photographed on the dust jac ket. The basic reason for the revolt against Mr Heath, however much it may have been ideologically rationalised afterwards in terms of 'right' versus 'left', was the experi ence of Conservative candidates, canvassing in the October general election of 1974. They found him to be a positive elec toral liability. Precisely why is not entirely clear, but the mere fact, conjoined with his loss of three elections out of four in a less deferential era than that of Lord Derby, was quite enough to produce a rebellion.
Sir Nigel's version of events is agreeably tinged with a certain deadpan irony. The author assures us that he does not believe that Edward Heath played any part in ousting Sir Alec. The assurance would be more convincing if we had not been told a few lines earlier that on the night of his leader's resignation he was attending at Gly ndebourne a performance of Macbeth.
There are many such touches ip a book which though most readable is not likely to spread sweetness and light at Blackpool — especially its revelations about the alleged 'dirty tricks' activities of some of the leader's entourage in 1975. The faithful ,would be better advised to have The Conservatives for their be-dside reading. It too is highly readable and it contains some first class contributions. I particularly commend the section by David Mikes on Baldwin and Charriberlain. He shows that one can admire the qualities of their great successor without feeling obliged to disparage the work that they did in their day.
Previous page
