Political Planning TOUGH TALK COMES FROM BRITAIN’S CONSERVATIVES

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30856, 15 September 1965, Page 16

Political Planning TOUGH TALK COMES FROM BRITAIN’S CONSERVATIVES

[Bg

"Lynceus"

of the "Economist."]

IFrom the "Economist" Intelligence Vnitl

With the death of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Britain’s Labour Government’s overall majority will be reduced to one. The Conservative Opposition understandably believes that Labour will not in fact survive through to the end of the recession which the British economy now seems to be entering. If they are right, then the odds must be that Britain will once more be governed by a Conservative Government before 1966 is out.

Hence the more than academic interest attached to a Bank Holiday week-end conference at tiie Conservative College in Yorkshire. The conference was attended by the new Leader of the Opposition, Mr Heath, his deputy and defeated rival, Mr Maudling. and several other Tory leaders; and the subject of discussion was economic policy for the next Tory Government. The meeting was a private one: but Mr Heath let it be known that discussion centered on a series of pamphlets published by young Tory members of Parliament and others earlier in the year: and what read like pretty circumstantial reports of what went on in Yorkshire have appeared in some of the newspapers. New Titles

From this it is evident that the accusation sometimes levelled at the Conservative Party during its latter years in power—that there was precious little to distinguish the economic policies of the two major British parties—is unlikely to apply when the next election comes around. The titles of the pamphlets discussed in Yorkshire speak for themselves: “The New Competitors”; “Conflict and Conservatism”; “Efficiency and Beyond”; “Second Managerial Revolution”; “A Nation of Customers.” While the Labour Party continues to place its faith in planning, incomes policy, and co-operation between the two sides of industry, “togetherness” has gone straight out of the window for the Young Turks of the Conservative Party. Mr Enoch Powell, with his faith in the disciplines of the market and his nostalgia for 19th century laisser-faire, may have received only 15 votes in the Conservative leadership contest: that by no means reflected the swelling number of his sympathisers.

A Series of Demands In terms of management of the British economy the new Conservative approach is reflected in a series of demands: for the replacement of national wage settlements by plant bargaining, with restrictive union practices abandoned in return for handsome productivity bonuses; a lowering of the incidence of direct taxation on middle management; a direct attack on unofficial strikes in breach of binding agreements, and also on price-fixing and other restrictive management practices; the use of threats of unilateral tariff cuts against monopolies and excessive price increases; and the

suspension of unions’ power to regulate entry into skilled trades and factories where the closed shop is in operation.

The “in” Tory words include emotive adjectives like “abrasive" and “competitive,” and new sciences such as cybernetics. There is in general an almost uncritical enthusiasm for the adoption of American techniques and technologies. Nor is the new approach confined to the sphere of economic policy. The demand for more competitiveness in the economy is paralleled by a call for the abandonment of the principle of comprehensiveness in social policy. The emphasis is all on the extension of the area of individual choice: the encouragement of private pension schemes and private provision for illness; the encouragement of home ownership and the need for recognition of the fact that housing cannot be a “social service” and that the proportion of personal incomes spent on housing in Britain is far too low; the encouragement of private education and the right of the individual citizen to enjoy a wider measure of choice in the schooling of his children —provided he is prepared to contribute towards the cost. Welfare State

It would, however, be a mistake to conclude from all this that the return of a Conservative Government to power would lead to a large-scale dismantling of the structure of the welfare state built up by the post-war Labour Government and also of the machinery of planning re-estab-lished by the Conservatives themselves in recent years. The Conservative leaders seem to be going out of their way to dampen the excessive ardour of their younger supporters. They point out, for instance, that people have

grown used to the idea that they are paying with their compulsory insurance stamps for state provision of old ase benefits. The idea might be wrong: but they might not be prepared to vote for a party which told them so. Again, people have grown used to living in subsidised housing, and they will not say “thank you” to a party which experts them to pay an economic rent. But perhaps the most significant indication of the thinking of the Tory leadership to have emerged is the emphasis which seems to be placed on the problems of sterling and world liquidity. Although the pound has been looking appreciably healthier in recent weeks, Mr Heath and his colleagues evidently believe that these problems will still hold top if they return to power within the next 12 months. Break With Past Here, too, it looks a* though there could well be a break with the past. When in power the Conservatives looked to Washington for the first line of defence for the pound, and the Labour Government has carried on and even extended this tradition. But now the Conservative leaders are talking about the overriding importance of continental European attitudes. Whether it would ever be possible to reconcile the viewpoints of chronic creditors and a chronic debtor nation such as Britain may be a matter for conjecture. But it looks as though the new Conservative leadership would dearly like to have a try.

This could in the end turn out to be a more significant change of direction than those advocated by the Tory pamphleteers: and it would be one which the Americans might find surprisingly difficult to live with.