POLITICS

How the Alliance could gain at the expense of its friends

PETER RIDDELL

Mr David Steel was no doubt using politician's licence when he described this weekend's Barbican rally of the SDP/ Liberal Alliance as a 'celebration'. But it is not, yet, a wake. Both he and Dr David Owen know that the Alliance could still hold the key to the timing and the result of the next general election.

The Alliance's opinion poll rating may be down at around 20 per cent or so, but it appears to have stabilised and may even be picking up slightly after last autumn's defence row. Any marked Alliance revival could delay the election date and any repetition of the Liberal/Alliance advance usually seen during the course of the campaign itself could mean the difference between an overall Conservative majority and a hung Parliament.

It is far too soon to write the Alliance off — and its attempt this week to raise its public profile has recalled at least the razzmatazz of the heady days of 1981. The launch press conference was packed with cameras and journalists. Yet the message this week has been noticeably different from that of 1981. Then the talk was of breakthrough and of winning power.

Now the aim is to achieve a bridgehead with sufficient seats to have a bargaining position in a hung, or 'balanced', Parlia- ment. It is the politics of coalition, not of outright majority. Sir Geoffrey Howe set out the familiar objections in one of his occasional 'domestic' speeches on Sunday. He referred to 'weak governments and soft options', 'sordid party deals pursuing the lowest common denominator', divisions on policy between the Liberals and the SDP, and the refrain of 'a vote for the Alliance is a vote for a socialist government'.

This is all good political stuff from a rich seam but, as Sir Geoffrey recognised, the fundamental question remains of what the Alliance is for. Any group which, even at its low point, has the support of a fifth of the electorate, cannot be dismissed as merely an outlet for protest votes. The SDP was founded mainly by ex-Labour MPs attempting to create an alternative to their former party — on one view (not Dr Owen's), to recreate a purified old Labour Party.

The hope was that the current Labour Party might eventually be reduced to the role of, say, the French Communists. But the link with the Liberals and the rapid influx of support from those without Labour roots soon changed the strategy. Moreover, even in the 1983 election, the Alliance failed, with rare exceptions, to challenge Labour in its industrial and inner city heartlands. Labour remained the party of the manual working class.

At present, the vast majority of the 100 plus Alliance target seats are Conversative held, in southern England and in rural areas. At most a dozen are either Labour held or were exceptional Conservative gains in 1983 of previously traditional Labour seats. In particular, the SDP's targets include Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Bath, Salisbury and Oxford West. There is the further twist that the intended Con- servative victims — Mr Robert Rhodes- James, Mr Bill Benyon, Mr Chris Patten, Mr Robert Key and Mr John Patten — are from precisely the traditional Tory One Nation wing of the party which should be the Alliance's natural allies in any coali- tion.

The Alliance has been forced by the electoral arithmetic to manoeuvre in the middle ground. It is no longer seeking to supplant Labour as the working-class par- ty, but rather to squeeze it in the more socially mixed marginal constituencies of the sort which have a less defined party allegiance.

This does not mean that the Alliance is rootless. Indeed, as considerable psepholo- gical evidence shows, the Alliance is the distinctive party of the more educated professional and service classes. This is a growing group but remains a small part of the total electorate.

The Alliance is left with the tricky problem of positioning, as in effect, a price taker on issues rather than a price maker. A week ago Mr Roy Jenkins offered a characteristically elegant updating of Keynesianism. But much of it could easily have been delivered 15 years ago and, despite his attack on Lawsonism, Mr Jenk- ins took little account of the underlying change in attitudes since 1979.

It is not necessary to regard the whole of the Thatcher record as irreversible to recognise a change in emphasis towards markets and against planning, towards incentives rather than intervention and towards the individual rather than the state. In a revealing lecture last Sunday Dr Owen said that, to be successful, parties had to adapt to this new thinking. He offered a social market approach which, he claimed, was different from that of the New Right in stressing the moral and economic case for greater equality through the Alliance's redistributive tax and benefit proposals, which he regarded as compati- ble with necessary economic adjustment.

Yet Dr Owen may not be altogether in tune with all in his party or the Alliance.

There is still a powerful interventionist strand within both parties, even leaving aside differences over nuclear defence and energy. These tensions could easily reap- pear after the election — aggravated by the considerable mistrust among Liberals and some Social Democrats about Dr Owen's leadership style and his frequently express- ed dislike of the Alliance's tendency to- wards soft options.

It all depends on how successful the Alliance is in the election. Mr Steel and Dr Owen believe the polls currently underesti- mate the Alliance's support, though both might be relieved by a doubling of its 23 seats won in 1983. If that gives them the balance of power then so much the better, though it would be a high-risk strategy leading almost certainly not to an immedi- ate coalition but to another election before long.

Without such an advance there is the risk of a slide into internal rows with the departure of one or both of Mr Steel and Dr Owen. There may anyway be a time- consuming debate over whether the two parties should merge or unite. It is, however, clear that the Alliance's long-term interests would be best served by the Conservatives being the largest single party after the election. A Labour govern- ment of any kind would polarise the political debate and stop the Alliance from appearing as the main anti-Tory alterna- tive, especially in the south. Only if Labour is failing to look like a possible government is there a chance of the continuing realign- ment on the Centre/Left necessary for a further Alliance advance.

Just as Conservative and Labour hopes of returning to two-party domination are premature, it will be a long haul for the Alliance to break out of its current niche and try to turn the present two and a half party competition into a full three party system. So any celebrations this weekend should be restrained.

Peter Riddell is political editor of the Financial Times.