A Reply to My Critics
By ANGUS MAUDE, MP
WELL, here we are again. Or perhaps 'still' would be the more appropriate word. It has been an instructive fortnight. We have discovered that the political correspondent of The Times cannot read, but that its leader-writer, with more time at his disposal, can puzzle out the sense of the words after a fashion. We have seen that the press—and some of the Conserva- tive party, too—are still so neurotically obsessed with the dead duck of the leadership issue that it is impossible to discuss policy and its presenta- tion without being embroiled in personalities.
I feel a little like the character in The Rivals who said, 'The quarrel is a very pretty quarrel as it stands; we should only spoil it by trying to explain it.' After all, everyone else has been explaining it like mad. The sense of it is now gradually beginning to emerge, so perhaps all that needs to be done is to round it off.
The letters I have received from Conservatives all over the country have been most instructive. The first batch (about fifty) were written on the basis of the early newspaper stories, and many of the writers clearly thought I had in fact launched a swingeing attack on Mr. Heath. Even so, the letters were about seven to one in my favour. The next batch were nearly all from people who had actually had a chance to discover what I really said. They broke more than twenty to one in my favour, and the pro- portion among letters still coming in is almost exactly the same.
Thus we have a large majority writing, 'You are dead right and it needed saying,' and a small minority writing, 'You may well be right but you shouldn't have said it.' It is, of course, well known that it is never the right time to say something controversial. What has struck me most forcibly is the number of intelligent people who seem pleasantly surprised at hearing any- thing being said at all. This does suggest that, despite the policy 'groups and the country- stumpers, the policies of the Opposition simply have not been getting through even to the in- telligent Tory.
This has been in large measure due to the success of the Prime Minister in blanketing all Political discussion with the blown-up Rhodesia crisis, but it seems clear that the Conservative voice has in any case been sounding pretty muffled. There has been a lack of clarity on cer- tain important policy matters, and some hesi- tancy for fear of losing votes. No party ever won an election by trying not to lose votes: it is going out and winning them that counts.
I suppose I should not have been surprised by the initial uproar. It is now apparent that the Powder train was already laid and only awaiting a spark. I do not particularly mind having blown myself up, for I can usually manage to fall on my feet.. But we have blown a few barriers down, and I am prepared to bet that the future state of the Conservative party will not be the less healthy for it. In particular, it has become obvious that we must come rapidly to a clear decision about incomes policy and other urgent economic problems.
It is amusing to recall that I said this pretty clearly and firmly in a SPECTATOR article on November 19, entitled. 'Powell and the Tories.' It had long been obvious that what Enoch Powell was saying constituted a clear challenge to make a comparatively simple choice. 'Let us, then,' said I, 'bring Powellism out into the open and put it—and ourselves—to the test of frank discussion.'
Yes, well. That challenge fell into the arena with all the crisp ring of an underdone pan- cake. Not only no headlines, but no discussion either. From now on, it may be different.
Clearly Sir Gerald Nabarro had not read that piece, for he chides me with his usual charm for ignoring the party split on incomes policy. I don't think he can have read the second article either, since he appears to be unaware that I dealt at some length with the Rhodesia split and did not in fact attack Mr. Heath. However, I know he is very busy. His letter represents, of course, a far more devastating criticism of the party's leadership than I would have felt it right to make, but no doubt they like it that way in Worcestershire.
I expect Mr. Eldon Griffiths has been so busy with his homework that he has scarcely had time to wonder why he was the only one of my Parliamentary colleagues who thought it right to attack me in public. Being apparently not much given to shafts of light on the road, he may take a little time to work it out. But yes, I was not unaware of the work of party policy groups. And 1 am grateful to Mr. Griffiths for emphasis- ing my contention that it has not got through to the public. I am surprised that so experienced a publicist has not grasped the point that almost every one of my correspondents sees clearly: that all this detailed work, which will be in- valuable to the next Conservative government, is only half the battle of getting one elected. Unless there is also a clear voice speaking a few simple truths which are felt to be relevant to the worries and frustrations of ordinary men and women, details of policy will go for nothing.
This really is the nub of the matter. That it is a deeply-felt want is abundantly clear from the reaction to what I have been trying to say. I shall be very much surprised if the leaders of the party do not now try to fill the vacuum. If they do not, then the political malaise will continue. It is surely desperately dangerous when so large a section of the public professes to find little .perceptible difference between the policies and •performance of the two main parties. It wouldn't be so bad if they thought that bOth were right; at present they find them both irrelevant.
Previous page
