OVER TO THE OFFENSIVE

By ANGUS MAUDE WHEN I left for Australia in April, 1958, I VY was the only politician of any party who was on record as having expressed a conviction that the Government would win the next general election. I am prepared to state now, with almost equal certainty, that it will win again next time. Certainly there was nothing in the recent by- election results to shake this confidence. If the Labour Party cannot exploit rising unemploy- ment to better effect than it did in Woodside and South Northants, it is not doing well enough to be sure of whining a general election. And if the Liberals cannot do better than they did in all the by-elections except Chippenham, then their revival has had it.

If anyone doubts the reality of the Liberals' setback they have only to recall what the Liberals were saying (and believing) six months ago. Moreover, the Liberals have no hope of becom- ing a real political force unless and until they begin to cut heavily into the Labour vote, and there is as yet no sign that they can do this.

Colne Valley will tell us more. When Labour has lost another general election, it may be a different story. Meanwhile the obvious setback to their revival is likely to make them appear to the electors increasingly irrelevant as the general election draws nearer. If a Liberal inter- vention cannot cause South Northants to be lost to Labour now, the prospect of a massive Liberal effort next year is scarcely alarming.

The country has still to choose between the Conservatives and Labour, and at present its judgment is in suspense. There is much truth in the Spectator's editorial comment last week that the nation seems `to be caught in the trough between disgruntlement and boredom.' It has for some time clearly been bored with Labour and the Tories; I suspect that iris now rather bored with the Liberals as well. This boredom with part■, politics will not, however, necessarily en- dure. Indeed, the possibility of a change may well make the next general election the keenest since 1950, with a surprisingly high degree of public interest and participation.

If neither of the main parties can succeed in capturing the imagination of the people in the next twelve months, then the result will depend solely on the extent to which the Government can succeed in regruntling the disgruntled.

It ought, of course, to be much easier for the Labour Party to kindle the imagination—especi- ally of the younger voters—than for a party that has been in power for eleven years. But there is still not the slightest sign that it even intends to try. Moreover, the growth of unemployment is likely actually to inhibit the efforts of those in the party who would like to try. This is what Labour's Old Guard has been waiting for, ever since 1951, and it will scarcely move into the future when it has a chance to fight on the traditional battleground of the past. The Labour Party has for long given the impression that it is deeply averse to change, and even a whiff of classical unemployment is likely to make even the least Marxist of Socialists positively reac- tionary. This is not, of course, to say that severe unemployment would not win them the election if it went on long enough. Obviously it would. The point is that if doesn't go on long enough Labour may find itself with very little else to fight on.

The virtual certainty that Labour will concen- trate its efforts on the issue of unemployment in the next six months gives the Government-- paradoxically—a better chance to seize the initia- tive in other fields. The question is whether it will do so.

I believe that the need to regruntle the dis- gruntled and the need to kindle the imagination of the educated electorate are not two separate problems for the Government, but one. Only imaginative measures will recapture the disen- chanted. This is not a question of 'inspiring leadership.' I entirely agree with Henry Fairlie that the Prime Minister's Llandudno speech was admirable; so was Mr. Macleod's. I do not believe that a change of leadership at this moment would do any good at all. I have no doubt that the present Government is exceptionally strong and that its leaders see clearly enough which way the country ought to be moving. From now on, more attention needs to be paid to practical measures, imaginatively designed and aggressively carried through. A great deal of nonsense is, as usual, being talked about 'images.' I think it is probably true that at this moment the Government hasn't got one; and instead of mucking about trying to create one, it should thank God for it and concentrate on doing things that will carry conviction.

So far, the biggest obstacle to this has been the Treasury—and by that I do not mean indi- vidual Chancellors of the Exchequer. It is not simply that it has been wrong about economics: its whole attitude has been repulsive to intelli- Tainfing must elevate a person, inspire him and lead him on to noble deeds. Can paintings such as these carry out such noble tasks?'

Mr. Khrushchev, December 1, 1962. gent people. Between 1951 and 1955, during the aftermath of a Labour Government, there seemed to be a kind of method in its madness. More recently it has become a menace that needs to be ruthlessly dealt with; it seems to be actually extending its power and influence. It appears to have gained direct control, through its own nominees, of all the previously quasi-independent `fringe bodies,' such as the Arts Council, and is now apparently engaged in the crazy enterprise of trying to destroy the autonomy of the UniYer- sity Grants Committee. It has alienated a sub' stantial body of loyal Conservative supporters by an approach to Service pensions that has been mean to the point almost of dishonesty; the amount of resentment caused has been enormous, while the total quantity of money in question has been relatively small. In seventeen years since the war ended it has, done virtually nothing in the way of any radieal reform of a taxation system that is archaic, ab- surdly complicated and in many respects grossi)!, unjust. In the economic field it has manage' to get the worst of both worlds more often than one would have believed possible. Alternating periods of inflationary boom and industrial stag: nation are bad enough, but a combination 01 rising unemployment and rising prices is alrnOst a miracle.

For all this the Government bears responsle bility, for it has let these things go by default; but even a change of Government would have little effect unless the Treasury machine itself is effec- tively dealt with. It is to be hoped that this is at ' last being attended to, but it is something to which the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will have to pay a great deal of attention. The one thing which will, happily, restrain the Treasury's propensity to mess things up is that the Government is now committed to large long-term programmes in respect of housing' roads, railways, hospitals and so on, and °!Y.„ viously cannot afford to go back on them. a' deeply suspicious of the Treasury's intentions towards education, in which flat-out expansi°n is supremely important, but I cannot believe that Ministers will allow themselves to lose this battle; The great advantage of having embarked, lat. in the day, on these long-term programmes is', of course, that they extend beyond the date 0' the general election. The Government will, ther!, fore, be able to offer the electors a continuity t of policies already beginning to bear foil Whether or not these will capture the imagina- tion of the country depends in part on the ternPu_ achieved, and for the rest on whether they are aggressively or apologetically presented. "here has been too much defensiveness of late. This has not been altogether the Governments fault, particularly in respect of the hideously cult political problem of our entry into the C°nor mon Market. Of course, it is true, as the Spectal,e said last week, that 'the European issue is gut real key to all else in our domestic politics. ,0 1 haven't a great deal of time for the critics Iv" complain that the Government has missed a

great opportunity to be inspiring about it, and that it should never have allowed itself to be put on the defensive by the anti-Marketeers.

It is all very well for the Liberals to be in- spiring about Europe; they haven't got to do the negotiating and get us in. I cannot imagine a worse political flop than for the Government to key the country up to a high pitch of excitement about 'the challenge and adventure of Europe' and then to have to announce that the negotia- tions have broken down. So long as this remains a possibility—and I imagine that a suspension of negotiations in the spring is far from impos-

sible—the Government's trumpets must remain muted.

It is, however, far otherwise with the anti- Marketeers, who are free to pour out propaganda Which is uninhibited to the point of paranoia. And to some extent this has to be answered and countered, which puts the Government plainly on the defensive. The South Dorset by- election provided a textbook illustration of how the anti-Market campaign can work if the con- ditions are right for it. Reluctant as I am to refer to it, I think it necessary to make clear what happened in this campaign, if only because of the very widespread misunderstanding of its nature.

First of all, there is not the slightest doubt that Sir Piers Debenham, without the support of Lord Sandwich, would have been lucky to get 1,500 votes. The fact that he got 5,000, how- ever, was not due to the mere fact that Lord Sandwich supported him, but to the Beaverbrook press campaign which this support provoked. Without Lord Sandwich, the Daily Express and the Evening Standard would certainly not have thought it worth while to keep their cleverest political reporters on a full-time assignment in S. outh Dorset. His intervention, however, offered Just enough likelihood of a government defeat —which could be interpreted, if not as a vote of censure on the Common Market policy, at least as a warning to the Government to aban- don it—to make a full-scale campaign worth While. From the moment that this possibility was grasped, the heat was turned on. The word began to get around, and not only the anti- Market organisations, but every reactionary and near-fascist group in the country seemed to descend on South Dorset. 'Alien Rule' and Butter at 6s. a lb.' were the keynotes of the

campaign, and we were forced to spend much time in answering them.

Moreover, the remainder of the press re- mained apparently unaware of what was going on until the last week of the campaign. The `quality' newspapers either ignored the campaign or took their impressions of it at second hand from other reports. The 'friendly' Conservative Press arrived too late to do anything useful to counter the work of the opposition. I do not believe that this clever and un- scrupulous campaign could be exactly repeated elsewhere—after all, there is only one Lord Sandwich to provide the requisite conditions— but 1 think the Government would do well to realise the danger of something of the kind being tried again in circumstances even remotely

Meanwhile, there is obviously a serious risk that the whole Common Market policy will go sour on the Government, and there is not nearly as much that can be done about it as the Govern- ment's critics appear to think. Almost the only effective answer would seem to be for the pro- Market press to devote as much space and in- genuity to campaigning as does the Beaverbrook press, and I cannot see this happening. The public continues to complain that the Government has not 'told it enough' about the case for entry into Europe, but in fact its resistance to being told—in any but the most sensational terms— is considerable.

Finally, there is one thing that the Govern- ment must do—and do quickly—if Mr. Selwyn Lloyd and Mr. Macleod are to get the Con- servative Party machine to its maximum efficiency before the general election: that is to exorcise the mood of defeatism that has come over the party's older supporters. It is perfectly true that the party's future depends on attracting the en- thusiasm of the young, and the Prime Minister and Mr. Macleod are quite right to pitch their speeches in the key of change and adventure. But the fact remains that it is largely the middle- aged and elderly—particularly the retired—who do the constituency work; and to them very little of the change going on around them seems either exciting or even desirable. Some of this is due to the Government's neglect.

I do not suggest that the policies should be changed, nor do I believe that the more reac- tionary Conservatives can ever be satisfied. But I am sure that more could be done to make the `liquidation of the British Empire' sound like the constructive achievement that it is, instead of like an ignominous retreat; that the increasing tendency towards co-operation between nations could still be made to appear what it is—the out- line of the future pattern of mankind—instead of merely a British slump into small-power status; and that the social revolution could be made to appear even to elderly Conservatives as a national blessing rather than as a sectional disaster.

Meanwhile, even while inflation remains un- conquered, much could be done to atone for past neglect through reform of the taxation system and of the system of local government revenues, together with a more humane approach to Service and other pensions on the part of the Treasury. The total cost of the desirable concessions would not be large, and they would be made to people who have deserved well of the country. But action needs to be taken quickly.

All in all, I am confident that the Government will win the next general election. Nor do I believe that it must necessarily do it through the ineptitude of the Labour Party, although this can be counted upon to help. I really believe that the Government is on the way to deserve success.