The Conservative Crisis-2

Attitudes and Slogans

By ANGUS MAUDE

THERE has been a Conservative majority in the House of Commons in forty-two of the Years since 1900 and in thirty-six of the years since 1918. To a generation influenced by the Labour landslide of 1945 it conies as a surprise to discover that Conservative government, rather than the alternation of parties, is the norm; such bursts of radical reform as those heralded by the elections of 1906 and 1945 are temporary aberrations from the norm.

What have been the reasons for this con- tinuing predilection for Conservative govern- ment? Whatever they are. it is clear that the one thing the electorate has not sought from the Conservatives is radical change. When it has wanted this, it has turned to a radical party. What has it sought from the Conservatives, then?

Sometimes, after a radical interlude, the nation is clearly in a mood for a period, if not of reaction, at least of consolidation and a slower rate of change. At all times the voters demand that the Conservative Party shall at least give the appearance of being aware of, and in sym- pathy with, the mood and needs of the country —that Conservatives shall convey at least a mini- mal impression of being 'with it.' In 1906, after three and a half years of intra-party strife under Balfour, and in 1929, after four and a half years of largely inept government under Baldwin, the electors decided that this minimum condition had not been met, in 1945 not even their im- mense respect and grateful affection for Winston Churchill could convince them that the Con- servatives were in tune with the strange new P°-st-war world. The same fears are being ex- pressed today.

At times, no doubt, the party has been re- turned to office largely on the reputation of its leader. More often its success has been at least m Part attributable to a general belief that it was more competent to govern than its rivals —that it contained more men of ability and ex- perience. None of these things. however, wholly accounts for the continuity of feeling that has kept half the electorate loyal to a party that has been essentially Conservative since 1834. The only thing that can satisfactorily explain this is.

a deeply conservative-- or at least anti-

radical—grain spread throughout the whole nation, transcending differences of class, status and .income. Nor is this simply an attitude of the, 'haves,' as against the 'have riots,' although °early an attitude of caution towards radical change is likely to characterise those who have something to lose. whether it be wealth and status, a small nest-egg of savings, or even a Joh. There is much more to it than this. Disraeli Made the point in 1874: `We have been told that a. working man cannot be conservative, because he has nothing to conserve—he has neither land no capital; as if there were not other things In the world as precious as land and capital!'

The average dyed-in-the-wool Conservative voter would probably not be conspicuously ar- ticulate if asked to define the enduring features of Conservatism that command his loyalty. In general, however, he no doubt feels that they include a preference for traditional institutions, for the known and sound; a respect for indi- vidual freedom, for property, and for the rule of law; a patriotic desire to maintain the in- terests and influence of the country in the world; a conservative preference for 'sound finance' and control of government expenditure; a desire to limit State intervention in the economy, and official interference with the private affairs of individuals, to a reasonable minimum; and, in general, a disposition to let people get on and enjoy themselves in their own way.

These feelings are ingrained in many—if not most—of those who regularly support the Con- servative Party. But while, as I said last week. these people will continue to prefer their own party to either of the others, it is not surprising that they should he bewildered by the present situation. For in eleven years of Conservative administration the relative power and inter- national status of Britain have probably de- clined rather than increased; the Colonial Em- pire has been systematically diminished, power being in some territories handed over to anti- British nationalists; government expenditure has vastly increased. together with inflationary in- creases in wages and prices; taxation is still, over the whole range. high; and the problem of pro- viding adequate and efficient national defence is still unsolved In addition, the leaders of the party are now openly urging the need for radical changes in traditional institutions and habits.

That nearly all these things were inevitable— even if they were not all dzsirable—does not alter the fact that they are far from being the

things the electors have been accustomed to expect and desire of Conservative governments.

It is. no doubt, a failure on the Government's part that their inevitability has not been con- vincingly explained to its supporters. But the situation has been further complicated—and the bewilderment of Conservative electors increased --by the fact that the stock speeches of so many Members of Parliament, candidates and volun- tary workers appear to ignore completely the changes that have taken place. It is this hang- over of the attitudes and slogans of the past, as 'There's no business like satire business!' it affects the present, that I shall consider in the remainder of this article, leaving speculation about the future (together with discussion of the party's leadership) until next week.

Last week I described the political stratifica- tion of the party in Parliament, and the way in which Conservative policies of the past con- tinued to be represented there, No party can survive for 130 years' without moving with the times, but it does not always take all of its sup- porters consciously with it; and some of them, when they do Fecome conscious of change, notice and resent the change in the party before they become fully aware of the change in the times. It seems to me that Lord Salisbury now provides an example of this phenomenon.

To be a young. intelligent and imaginative Conservative Member of Parliament is probably the finest character training in the world. One can see the process at work : the first glow of confident enthusiasm gives way to incredulous resentment; if they survive this stage (and some do not), the resentment gives way to a half- relucant, half-amused respect; finally, the best reach the stage at which they have come to terms with their material and can work it with familiar and atlectionate skill

The knights get them down at first. The seventy back-bench Conservative knights and baronets, who have been called both the hard core and the soft centre of the parliamentary party, are something quite on their own. It has been said (I think by me, although one can never be quite sure) that Conservative Members of Parliament can be divided into those who want to become Ministers quickly and those who want to become knights slowly. And the knights possess the qualities as well as the dzfects of the tortoise. Not that they are really a homogeneous group and some of them are a deal cleverer than they ever let on. They sit back and watch the smart ones come and go, indulge in a little mild plotting when the fancy takes them, and for the rest provide an element of ballast which has more than once saved the ship. How else

could the Conservative Party have sailed through the Suez crisis and gone on for all the world as though nothing out of the ordinary had hap- pened?

Of course, the knights are behind the times, and many of them will admit it with even a certain quiet satisfaction; if the times want to push on ahead of them, well, let them get on with it and see what happens. But they are for

the most part quite happy to watch their leaders skirmishing out in advance of them, and if the brave fellows imprudently run into trouble the knights will lumber up in support. The side will definitely not be let down by them.

The one thing they will not do is to alter their stock speeches. In so far as their Conservatism is articulate at all—and the part that is not articulate is by far the best and most enduring —it is expressed in a series of slogans that are as automatic and unquestioned as they are now meaningless and irrelevant. 'Free competitive enterprise,' sound finance,' the Commonwealth and Empire,' 'keeping Britain strong,' cut government spending'—the phrases roll out w they have done for the last fifteen years and more, and the loyal Conservative supporter!. applaud them all.

But what do they mean? Or rather, since there is obviously a sense in which each of the phrases is meaningful, what do the speakers themselves mean by them? What do they really want to do about the Commonwealth and Empire? What, nowadays, is `sound finance'? If there is anyone in this country who can say with complete cer- tainty what the Chancellor's projected surplus or deficit ought to be within a round £250 million either way, I have yet to meet him. How can we keep Britain strong? By merging with Europe, or by buying American Polaris missiles? On What should we cut government spending? On keeping Britain strong? How free and competi- tive can enterprise be allowed to become before it becomes uncomfortable and interferes with orderly marketing'?

Is it surprising that millions of Conservative suPP0rters fail to ask themselves these questions While so many Conservative Members of Par- liament continue to use the same comfortingly familiar phrases without apparently questioning their meaning themselves? Even highly intelli- gent Tory leaders like Lord Hailsham are not above using phrases like 'Britain's place in the World: or even `beating the drum for Britain,' Without much detailed explanation of what they are intended to mean. The trouble is that the loyal supporters know exactly what they under- stand these phrases to mean; but do Lord liailsham and his followers in Parliament really believe

that they can deliver those particular goods to the looked-for specification?

Even the more up-to-date slogans—the th `property-owning Democracy,' for example, and the 'Opportunity State'—could surely do with some restatement in practical and explanatory terms. There is even a risk that the most up-to- date of all—the one about the need for radical ennge and for 'bringing Britain up to date'— will degenerate into a mere slogan unless some- thing is actually done about it before long. Thus it would appear that to speak of the ten- sions inside the Conservative Party now in terms elf a 'right wing' and a `left wing' is hardly meaningful The division is now (perhaps it tt"vaYs has been) between those who are con- ," to adopt the attitudes of the past towards 4 Present the nature of which they have not yet !rasped and those who are trying to grapple with Problems of the present and future realisti- v3IllY and in practical terms. Among the latter, Others the justice of some of the Liberal oitieisrris of our society; and, just as Mr. kesmond Donnelly's attempts to discuss prob- Totils realistically causes Socialists to call him a as rly' s° the Tory realists are inevitably branded to heft-wing' or `pink Socialists.' Further, it has c..oe remembered that a majority of traditional „."-ianservative supporters in the country remains Con- servative is virtually encouraged by many Con- sta MPs to remain—in the pre-realistic vo,!e, while large numbers of new and 'floating' actual are interested solely in the solution of ual Problems. This is the Government's dilemma, reWoie shall consider the leaders' attempts to ,-,Ve it, and discuss the future developments a'_okonservatism in an era of rapid change, in e neluding article next week.