What next for the Alliance?

Jo Grimond

Pe first feature of the election is that once again we have a government bas- ed on a minority of the electorate. Once again the third party is ludicrously under- represented: 25 per cent of the vote, 23 seats. The Alliance required almost ten times as many votes as the Labour or Tory parties to send a representative to Parlia- ment. In a democracy there is no defence for this. If the Constitution laid it down that Liberals and Social Democrats could not vote, or that one Tory or Socialist was to count as ten, no democrat would support it. The main objections against electoral reform are ridiculous. It would lead to 'weak' governments. Answer — what we want are 'good' not 'strong' governments. The post-war German governments have not been weak. It would lead to too many parties. Why are several parties tad'? Every European country has a number of parties. There were some eight parties represented in the last Parliament. The Liberals did not introduce electoral reform when they were in power. But they deliberately helped the small Labour Party and in many seats did not oppose it. The only valid objection is that some methods of election entail severing the direct link of one member to his or her constituents. But that is an argument against proportional representation, not against the alternative vote or against the added member system.

We have seen what has happened in Nor- thern Ireland through the exclusion of a sizeable minority. If the Alliance voters find that the Government and Parliament ex- clude them, they will have to consider what other remedies are available to them. At the very least a referendum should be held.

The second feature of the general election is that if our preposterous voting system led to a Tory 'landslide' in seats, it led to no such landslide in votes. The Tory vote fell. The opposition vote exceeded it — in Scotland very substantially. There was no vote of confidence in Mrs Thatcher. That she was not defeated was due to the voting system, not to her popularity.

The third feature was that there were two main opposition parties. In numbers of votes cast the Alliance was not far behind Labour. But while Alliance votes were scat- tered nationwide, Labour was concentrated largely in the old industrial areas. This

'Put me down as unskilled — I was an MP.'

under the voting system gave them a great advantage in seats. But if this trend coo' tinues Labour will become a localised partY. The Alliance will take over as the national party in opposition to the Tories. What will our politics then look like? For all of this century the main division of politics has been between a Conservative Party anxious to preserve the social state' ture of the country and suspicious of state ownership and action, and an opposition willing to use the machinery of government to change the structure of society and ex" tend the ambit of the state. The framework has been essentially socialist. The Conger' vatives have accepted socialist changes. Under such ministers as Neville Chamberlain they have themselves mad! much use of the state. Is this to continuer Will our politics continue to be fought out between two parties each anxious to take over the engine of the state, one intendin.g to drive it slowly, the other fast, but both accepting that they are on the same tram travelling to more and more public control. If so, then, in an important sense, the mould of politics will not have bed" broken. The Alliance will take the place the Labour Party — breaking the Party mould certainly — but the mould of the old overriding conception of politics Will not have been broken. The Tories will contirl', to assert the conservative side, the

the progressive side, of the politics of state socialism.

I believe that it is likely that this will hat, pen. I believe that the radicalism of tt" Tory government has been greatly ag!g- gerated. The proportion of the national 1.11: come taken by the state has risen undo their rule; so has the amount taken by taga.: tion. No great effort has been made to en7'.. tend the market. The nationalised 1,„ dustries and social services remain largeev, unchanged. The Government has squeez the private, not the public sector. business still groans under innumerabetire forms and regulations. Judging by speeches at the election and since, the Tory ministers intend to continue on this ours On any question of structural change Mrs workers' control). Thatcher comes down on the side ofheirp oco (on electoralreform, vouc 5

c

r Tefr But there are voices in the Cabinet for something different. There is M bit. I do not see Mr Tebbit as a hard-facod businessman, certainly not as an Eton an chik of the CBI. He is not an old Et7I paternalist, but he is, I believe, a p0Pd11:"„.. doubt if he is entranced by the logical boa ty of monetarism. He is, I suspect, )71. pathetic not only to the desire of the ePn7 for more money, but for more influ There is Mr Lawson. Messrs La wso; wet Game, Bruce-Gardyne wrote a book, The a. Game, critical of modern decision-nitt.175 Mr Lawson could turn out to be son'.. of a radical at the Exchequer — a the true sense of someone who not duet

springs.

alters the product of the present system; but goes to the roots from which that pr

The direction which this Government takes will depend on circumstances and its .

backbenchers. A majority of 140 the House of Commons balanced on a minority in the country makes Mrs Thatcher 's job difficult. Such dissenters from her economic policy as Messrs Heath, Rippon, Critchley and Tapsell were returned with large majorities. The evidence shows that the 'drys' have no claim to a monopoly of Tory support. At the other end of the Tory spectrum there will be pressure for a more aggressive private enterprise policy. The senior statesmen will be restrained by old loyalties and a desire not to be seen as disgruntled cast-offs. So the young Turks are likely to be more dangerous. But we must expect revolts from both sides. The revival of the economy may be delayed. If it takes place it will bring problems. Historically it is not depression and high unemployment which lead to unrest and left-wing resurgence. It is on the upswing that people grow restive. By-

elections will lead to government defeats.

The test will then come. Will the Govern- ment move Tebbitwise or Priorwise? Will the Alliance be able to increase its working- class vote? For it was obvious from window bills that in the suburbs and the South of England much support for the SDP comes from the richer middle classes. If the Government continues on its pre- sent course, which I regard as compounded more of Prior than Tebbit, then I believe that the Alliance will have a chance to seize the working-class vote outside the inner cities. And the speeches of its leaders, Par- ticularly David Owen, make me think it can do so. It seems likely that Dr Owen will take over from Roy Jenkins. Those of us who have hopes of the Alliance must be deeply grateful to Roy. Without his courage the flag Would never have been raised. The press stereotype of his character seems to Wme to need drastic amendment. At arrington and Hillhead he showed not Y . his willingness to take risks but his ability to get votes. He is in fact something of a gambler, a quality which the Alliance should use. Furthermore, I believe that he made much more of an appeal to some of the undemonstrative floating voters than is apparent from press comment. However, if David Owen takes over, he has now been given, owing to Roy's g.enerosity in stepping down so soon, suffi- cien. t time to sharpen the edge of the Alliance and to explain why it should take over from the Labour Party the expression theof working-class aspirations. On the whole, it country is getting more prosperous. As does, more and more people hope for money to spend and look forward to spen- ding it themselves. David Owen should ex- plain how, through for instance a national thminiese new mum income, he proposes to satisfy himself aspirations. He should either

mself or through some trusted lieutenant get hold of people in business, the trade unions and the universities who think as he does, get them to sift through the mass of Alliance Publications and come out with the heads of a policy which can be driven home before the next general election.

If the Government, however, not only talks the language of the radical Right but actually begins to practise it, then a dif- ferent situation arises. The Alliance could easily find itself defending the present set- up in the welfare services, the present form of nationalisation. It could become a con- servative party. This would be perfectly respectable. There would be a need and following for such a party. In a way, it would be mould-breaking, for the political debate would no longer be about how much socialism, but how much capitalism. It would be respectable, but in my view a pity. For if the Government begins not only to preach but to initiate some new ideas, the response should be not a defence of the status quo but the offer of other and better ideas. This Government is unlikely to go very far against the interests of those who run the City and big business. It is unlikely to change the structure of industry or Parliament.

I come back to where I started. Electoral reform is not a convenience for the Alliance. It is an essential step in giving the people at large greater influence and wider choice. If Parliament is to become the poodle of the Conservative Party, then the Alliance will have to carry the campaign to the country. To do so it must remain a radical party and resist the temptation to replace the conservatives of either the Tory or Labour parties.