The poisoned card
Patrick Cosgrave
Stimulated most recently, I think, by the ever mischievous Mr Callaghan, there has been a lot of talk going around to the effect that we may expect Mr Wilson to decide on a general election in June. Now, it is true that a number of Labour left-wingers, eager for the kind of majority which, they fancy, would be gained by such an election, and which, they hope, will usher in the possibility of a socialist millenium, have urged such a course on their colleagues. But it seems unlikely that Mr Wilson, or any of the more sober heads around him, will agree; nor would they be well advised to do so. Indeed, there is every evidence that it is a part of Mr Wilson's strategy to deny choice in the matter altogether to Labour politicians, and to hand the poisoned card of decision to Mr Heath.
Let us, however, deal with the general and objective — as opposed to the strategic and tactical political — reasons why Mr Wilson does not want to go to the country in June. It is not because he is timid, and awaiting the emergence of a consensus on a date among his colleagues: no timid man would have chosen June 1970. It is, perhaps, a little because he does not just now, want a large majority (assuming, which is by no means certain, that he would get one) in case the wilder-eyed among his followers would force him down the road to systematic socialism. It is most of all because this Labour Government, though its gladstone bag is full enough of gimmicks, is, far more than the last, committed to a lengthy and complicated legislative programme of fairly fundamental reform. Even Mr Foot, most dramatic of the new government's performers, needs at least three major bills just to replace the Tory Industrial Relations Act. So far as I can see, with the two exceptions of pensions and Mrs Williams's first attempts at price control, the motto of the Labour government of 1974 is Festina lente. And this is particularly the case when you have ministers who, either because they have been over the course before — like Mr Benn and Mr Crosland — or because they have come to office after years of political prominence — like Mr Foot — are anxious to show their prowess less in the matter of flashy politicking than in the business of slow and careful and complex legislation.
Again and again over the last few years the accepted generalisations about British politics have been damaged where they have not been overthrown. It used to be said that ours was an exclusively two-party system: the Liberal intervention in 1970 showed this was no longer so. It used to be said that you could not win an election with a highly detailed programme, since too much of your flank was bared to the enemy: Mr Heath in 1970 and Mr Wilson in 1974 showed this was not so. It used to be said that you could not win an election with too rightor too leftwing a programme: the same two men in the same two years proved the reverse. It used to be said that you could not win an election (this is a corollary of the last point) unless you captured the centre: it now looks as if the Liberals have the centre and the other two parties must win by maximising their own committed votes — which, for the Tories, includes a substantial number of the working classes. It used to be said, finally, that the inestimable advantage of being Prime Minister was that you could choose the date of the next election. That was, in 1970 and 1974, to deal yourself the poisoned card. The upheavals in electoral behaviour in recent years has been enough to trouble even the wisest of politicians. But one can see Mr Wilson, because of certain characteristics in his nature, notably a desire to see his enemies hang themselves, and a deep regard for masterly inactivity, being tempted by the implicit reversal of the last of my generalisations. In 1970 he, and in 1974 Mr Heath, seemed to be taking advantage of a situation — and, by implication, advantage of the electorate — ar;d were punished for it. Let Mr Heath — or a replacement — accept in the future, therefore, the responsibility of ending the life of his government.
But, you may well ask, how is so difficult a manoeuvre to be carried out? There are two points, one great and one small, which suggest an answer. To take the small first: in total contrast to the period betwen 1965 and 1970 Mr Wilson has dealt in a most kindly fashion with Mr Heath at the Tuesday and Thursday Prime Minister's Questions' jousts in the House of Commons. Twice in the fortnight before the Easter recess he deliberately refused to take advantage of neatly phrased questions from Labour backbenchers designed to let him knock Mr Heath for six.
This behaviour suggests that Mr Wilson is anxious to give Mr Heath as much rope as possible, and certainly determined never to be seen to betaking advantage of him. The great point, however, relates to what I said earlier about the desire of Labour ministers to be meticuous and detailed in what they do; their conviction that flashy are best replaced by detailed changes in legislation. Though the Conservatives alone cannot bring down the Government, it would be child's play for them to make a terrible mess of the legislative programme. (This, by the way, is the kind of opposition at which Mr Heath excels: he made himself leader of the Conservative Party chiefly as a result of brilliantly meticulous and ruthless guerilla opposition to the Finance Bill of 1965.) Yet, to indulge in such child's play might well make the Tories appear uselessly and wilfully destructive: half a . cidents would be enough to give Mr case for asking the country for a mandate, to enable him to press on Queen's business against obstruction.,
Only one thing obstructs this scenarle' is the belief of some politicians and ee, tators that the nation is going to be inL economic mess by the autumn t7 government could hope for electoral vic doubt if this is true or, if true, Whet would stop Mr Wilson gaining victell' general economic situation is bound worse, since governments of neither party have shown the courage or the v tackle the country's problems at their But the specific situation is likely te rather better. And it will certainly seen as seems likely, the unions to a deg operate with the needs of a Labour g" ment, and restrain, as the engiae4 workers have done, their pay dernario„ Wilson's job is to sustain a momentifr will encourage the unions to do just t„)18 he shOwed his awareness of that details reaching into the distant planned industrial legislation when last Sunday. However, I will go on reco with the belief that, if the Labour Gove,4 go to the country of their own year, against a Tory party under Mr at,„ though they will win, it will not be " large majority. The greatest encouragement to MrA t to go on offering the poisoned Car`:toi Heath, however, is the dreadful '1$ indecision the Tories now find thernsei They fully grasp the dangers of VI Government down, or making it 411'00 for them to get their business:.„g other hand they have to say somethi; tive if they are to have any chenai comeback. At the same time they are and sevens on general policy matters 1, Shadow Ministers, only Sir Keith .101d Thatcher and Sir Geoffrey Howe s' seem to believe in a necessity for a , For example, after Mr Prentice_sb'i speech and circular on education, in w4y promised the abolition of virtually ev`he of schooling except that allowed bY,t", at any cost whatever to children anu,To all in support of a doctrine already Pi be wrong, inefficient and unfair, the. van Straubenzee— surely the sorriest,ed for an education spokesman ever offe,'W major party — could offer in rebut charge that Mr Healey would n°t Prentice enough money for the opereish Prentice's latest circular, said the,ca Secretary of State, "Is meaningless ": has no teeth. In educational terrT1'der
on on
mean money, and we all know tha.t ;el promises, ms etnhte, re is o extra in spite eoxfTaemd oSnheoyrtfoshro tion." Far more effectively did Sir Jdter, another former Conservative Minis int the Tory case: "A decree has gone ri$ land; parents shall no longer have choose where or how their children a4j educated; all children, regardless of 8t1.1t individual need, shall be processeeLfs4 massive educational combines; teaci'`,0* have but one employer and conven, evok local variation shall be brought to Ovoie Sir John spoke with the clear. ,h principled opposition: in the streng'48 words one could feel the conviction uto who knew where he would be willin„gope the cause on which he would be I,' tile bring down a government and take sequences. From Mr van Straubenzreonsl only the ,voice of niggle. A de:0 ati) niggling Tory Party is of no use a and will have to await its time ti", poiS trated Leader accepts Mr Wilson''font% card, and goes down again to cl„e, arts, there is no sign that the Tories v?".'_,deeo' necessary conviction by June; or, I" year.
Previous page
