A few weeks ago I lamented the fact that M
r Heath seemed to be adopting the politi- cal style of Mr Harold Wilson. It was a lamentable duty to suggest that the PM was revealing hints of the dreaded Wilson Pose which took Huyton Man into goggles and crash helmet for a helicopter jaunt; on to the stage with Ena Sharpies; into Sports- night with Coleman; astride the bridge of the Scilly Isles ferry; and to the aid of our gallant world cup captain when the nefa- rious Bogota Bobbies laid hands on him.
The disease was only embryonic when last I wrote: Now, alas, it shows signs of developing. For Sunday's papers and TV carried pictures of the PM seated beside a lady in distress in a manner that would have done credit to Pierre Trudeau in his most raffish bachelor days. The lady, one Mrs Desramault, is engaged in litigation for the custody of her child. She was sum- moned to room 101 of a Newcastle hotel to meet Mr Heath. Photographers were in- vited. Mrs Desramault wore 'a figure-fit- ting black and white dress'. The Skipper was in civvies. And apparently `nothing new was discussed ... we just had a general talk about things'.
This change of heart towards personal publicity is certainly not a sudden craving for the footlights' glare by the crusty sea- dog of No 10. No one could accuse Mr Heath of being personal. There are other signs that the period of governmental aus- terity in public relations is drawing to an end, for Mr Whitelaw has dropped the word in. the ear of a media mogul or two that brighter days lie ahead. As if to prove it Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Solicitor-General, a reserved legal figure, has agreed to appear in a mock trial of the new industrial relations bill on television this very Tuesday.
The reasons why there should be some anxiety over the image of the government are not difficult to comprehend. For one thing the opinion polls are not healthy. Of course the pollsters have, of late, been con- signed to the company of necromancers, crystal gazers and such like. But no one with any political sense is going to ignore them on one bad show. The latest opinion polls published by the Daily Express on Monday showed the Labour party 8 per cent ahead. More significantly perhaps, Mr Heath's personal popularity rating, a mere 35 per cent, trailed so far behind Mr Wil- son's 53 per cent that the pesky statistic had to be put in brackets at the bottom of the centre column of page 6.
Also the Industrial Relations Bill is near- ing its end on the floor of the Commons. (Although such are the threats of wildcat activity from the Lords that one fears that the hearing aids will have to be renoved to make way for oxygen cylinders.) Without doubt this piece of legislation has been a major weapon in retaining public sympathy for the Government but there comes a point when sheer boredom can blunt the effect of the Bill which by common consent is in- comprehensible to the overwhelming major- ity of the community.
Added to this there is the fact that as unemployment figures rise so will Conserva- eve unpopu arity. Then the Budget lies less than a fortnight ahead and .if, as seems likely, the Government feels unable to in- dulge in vigorous reflation of the economy there is bound to be hefty criticism from many quarters, some of which are nor- mally devoutly loyal. This could well lead to chronic unpopularity. If the Reaper should then be unkind enough to take a swathe or two out of the back benches the majority could drop alarmingly. No cause for panic yet, but certainly time for a, little refurbishing of the party image.
We can therefore look forward to some more examples of the Skipper dressing the ship all over and having strangers in the wardroom. If, however, the end of the pro- tracted battle over the Industrial Relations Bill (that is in the Commons) is in sight, it would be churlish not to look at how poli- tical careers have fared during its main passage in Parliament.
Without question it has helped to produce a bright new star in the person of Robert Carr. He is the outstanding success of the Heath government. At every level of politi- cal life he has managed to please the on- lookers. In press briefings he seems tireless and well-informed. He controls the Com- mons as well as anyone around and, on television, seems the bland professional man we could all trust. No-one dislikes him and even some of his own backbenchers who feared he would prove too sweet and reasonable, in the manner of Walter Monck- ton, have been impressed by his toughness. To be sure events have fallen his way—as they have for Christopher Chataway. But opportunities, such as the fine British non- reaction to chaps who are inconsiderate enough to pop bombs through the letter box, must be seized. And they have been.
Some of his difficulties have not been fully appreciated, not least the physical de- mands of recent months. The long nights spent on the Bill even put a strain on tradi- tional Tory loyalty. At one point back- benchers became so tired of being told not to press their amendments, when they had the good fortune to have, them called, that a letter went off to Mr William Whitelaw saying enough is enough.
However, much of the brunt of opposi- tion to the Bill was borne by Sir Geoffrey Howe. In these days when vigorous Con- servative policies are in vogue he could well have been viewed with some suspicion for he is known to be of a liberal turn of mind. Still the Bill has furthered his career since he is its main architect. It must be said that he does not exactly evoke memories of F. E. Smith, as legal luminaries go, but he has shown the ability to plod on never apologising, never weakening, and always explaining. Whether he has the political ability to move' from the dehydrated little corner of the political world occupied by the law officers has yet to be proved.
Things have not been so happy on the Labour side. Opposing the Bill has been difficult to explain to the electorate at large. Yet there has been one solid gain in the way that it has united the various wings of the party. Some of the additions to the front bench have also gained valuable experience. Mr Eric Helfer, who refused office under Mr Wilson for impeccable left-wing reasons, quite enjoys the dispatch box, although he only moved to the front bench specifically to oppose this Bill. When questioned by Mr Bernard Braden for those interviews he hopes to show in ten years' time he announced that he would like to be Minister of Labour. Who knows, he could do just that in time for the publicity blurbs.
Another backbencher who has gained stature during the battle has been Paul Rose, the Manchester barrister who, until he joined the Labour team, was usually iden- tified with civil liberty issues such as race and Ulster. He was PPS to Barbara Castle at Transport but quietly left when she went to the DEP. He abstained when called to support In Place of Strife and has worked happily opposing the present legislation.
Which leaves Mrs Barbara Castle. From the beginning she has been in an unhappy position. She desperately wanted to oppose the Bill, obviously hoping that she could regain the positio/i of being darling of the Left, which now means the major unions, when wiser counsel suggested Mr Calla- ghan. Alas, pAitical virtue is as impossible to recapture as the more common or garden variety. Throughout the passage of the Bill she has worked at a high pitch of intensity which has made opposition less effective than it should have been. Dissatisfaction with her performance, both in public and behind the scenes, lies in the fact that what once seemed sharp in her attack now seemed shrewish. It was easy for the relaxed men opposing her to dismiss much of her opposition because it was so unrelenting. So the political stature of this talented woman, who so recently was being quoted as a candidate for No 10, has suffered just as much as that of Robert Carr has grown during the long battle. The contrast was made by a prominent Labour front-bencher. `The trouble with dealing with a man like Robert Carr is that he can make the most hideous things seem sweet and reasonable'. Then he added, 'With Barbara it's just the opposite'.
Previous page
