Mrs Thatcher's dilemma
George Gale
Mrs Thatcher and her colleagues must have been feeling very pleased with themselves as they observed the Labour Party seeming to tear itself apart at Blackpool last month. Mr Callaghan's face, when the measure of the rejection of his incomes policy by the delegates — led by the big unions — became clear, expressed severe displeasure. But by the following day he had recovered, at least to the extent that he was able to display his familiar public face of smiling imperturbability. He even managed to joke a bit, and the delegates, who by now were feeling somewhat guilty at their nasty and rude behaviour the previous day, were very eager to laugh with him. The Prime Minister's message, however, unlike his jokes, was neither feeble nor muddled. Whatever they, the delegates, the unions, might vote and say, he, the Prime Minister, and his Government were not to be deflected from their duty to govern as they thought the situation demanded. He would stick by his five per cent — whatever the delegates might think, and whatever the unions might do, about a return to free collective bargaining. The split was as wide as ever; and although Mr Michael Foot was empowered to offer the unions talks with the Government, which invitation the unions leaders indicated they were graciously pleased to accept, it was clear that the Prime Minister and his ministers were proposing to follow one policy and the Labour party conference, its National Executive and the Trades Union Congress were set upon the opposite course. Mrs Thatcher thus had every cause for pleasure as she observed this situation. which clearly carried with it the certainty of confrontation between unions and government. Since the Labour conference, two meetings between senior ministers and senior union bosses have been held, in an endeavour to reach some kind of compromise on wages which both sides can accept, but the result has been one of utter failure. Mrs Thatcher and her colleagues must therefore have felt themselves entitled to continue to be delighted at the way Labour was playing into their hands.
It was true that at their own conference, a week later, Mr Heath had warned against gloating should the Government's pay pol icy break down. He spoke right against the grain of the conference; but within minutes, up stood Sir Geoffrey Howe (who has always looked a bit stout but now sounded it for the first time) rebuking Heath: 'We must return to realistic, responsible col lective bargaining, free from Government interference.' They gave Sir Geoffrey a standing ovation in which Mr Heath was compelled to join. That night he went on television to say that Mr Callaghan should be supported: this angered the party, and was undoubtedly a blow to the leadership. Nonetheless, Mr Heath was surely no more than a little local diffuculty; and Mrs Thatcher must have left Brighton, the applause of the faithful sweet in her ears, thinking, as she used to think, that all she had to do was wait.
Well, she cannot be thinking that any longer; or, if she is, then all she is waiting for is defeat. I have always doubted the thesis that the less the Tory leadership says and does, the less it actually specifies what it would do in power, the less it exchanges the rhetoric of freedom, incentives and the money supply for the nitty-gritty of less taxes and more cash, the better. This thesis assumes that electoral victory will come in any event and, this being so, the less the incoming Tory government is committed by previous promises, the better. Granted a certain victory, there is something, although not very much, to be said for this com fortable and sloppy approach — which, incidentally, treats the electorate with con siderable contempt. But there is no such thing in British politics as the certainty of an electoral victory, especially when the timing of the election is in the hands of the enemy.
What has happened since the Labour and Conservative party conferences has been to make the smile on Callagham's face begin to look like the smile on the face of the tiger, and the smile on Mrs Thatcher's face to have been wiped off entirely. I begin to wonder whether she and her close advisers know what they are doing, softening her hair-do, lowering her voice, having her say nothing much but go smiling on her walk abouts around the country.
'There was a young lady of Riga Who rode with a smile on a tiger: They returned from the ride With the lady inside And the smile on the face of the tiger.'
I am not arguing, with the limerick, that Mr Callaghan is actually going to devour Mrs Thatcher, but the fact is that Parliament resumes this week, at last managing to get back to work after its summer holidays, with that sad and grisly eventuality looking far less improbable than it did a month ago.
The facts behind Mr Callaghan's smile are few but pleasant. First, the public thinks that the best speech of the party conferences was Mr Heath's; this means that the country approves of Mr Callaghan's wages policy and approves of Mr Heath saying that the Tories ought to support it. It also means that the country has not the slightest understanding of Mrs Thatcher's policy. The country grasps the fallacy that high wages.make for high prices and comes to the erroneous conclusion that the way to beat inflation is to keep prices down. It is in a way not surprising that the country should so conclude, since this is what the establishment has been saying for thirty years. The country has not been any more able than Mr Heath to understand that the control of incomes has, over these years been responsible for low wages as well as inflation. The country is aware of the failure of successive governments to deal with inflation; but it has been fooled by the politicians and the Treasury mandarins, and been conned into believing that the fault lies not with government, politicians and mandarins but elsewhere: the fault is the unions. This is not exactly what Mr Heath and Mr Callaghan are saying. It is, however, the impression they are giving. The unions are unpopular: hence Mr Heath's popular speech, supporting Mr Callaghan, who is believed to be 'standing up'. to the unions. Mr Heath is the first fact behind Mr Callaghan's smile.
The other facts are directly related. There are first the findings of the Gallup poll, which put Labour, after its 'disastrous' con' ference and the Tories after their 'brilliantly stage-managed' one, seven points ahead 01 the Tories — having started the conference season well behind. There are then the results of last week's by-elections, with Labour holding with an increased majority Berwick and East Lothian, a natural Tory seat if ever there was one: and with the Tories doing better at Pontefract, but not better enough to cause them any great satisfaction. There was a swing in their favour, but the miners almost certainly wanted to show their displeasure with their goy' ernment by not voting. They cannot be relied upon to abstain at a general election, anyway, Labour held the seat easily.'
These are not trivial facts. They demonstrate that Callaghan has increased 1115 popular support, by appearing to stand up to the unions. They suggest a hankering, 0° the public's part, for some kind of central coalition confronting the unions. They show that the public wants an incomes policy and, has not the faintest understanding 0.1 monetary measures. Callaghan's success 15 due to his monetary policies, not to his incomes policy, which failed in Stage Three and is manifestly failing in Stage Four. Nonetheless, the public gives Callaghan and his incomes policy the credit for the IMF imposed monetary measures. Added together, they give Callaghan the ability to appeal to the country over the heads of the unions: to succeed where Heath failed.
This is Mrs Thatcher's dilemma. The country might still turn to her, if Labour s failure became very evident. But it will only do so with confidence if it understands what she would do: about the unions, about wages, about making people better Off, about reducing taxes, about rewarding effort, about discouraging the idle. I have said it before and I say it again. She must get down to brass tacks. She must come out fighting not smiling.
Previous page
