Front-runners in the struggle to succeed Wilson

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34106, 19 March 1976, Page 13

Front-runners in the struggle to succeed Wilson

By

GEOFFREY SMITH.

of "The Times." through N.Z.P.A )

LONDON, March 18.

Harold Wilson's sudden resignation does not leave the British Labour Party with any automatic successor.

Since 1972 Mr Ted Short has been deputy leader of the party, but his election to that post has never been seen as implying the succession.

At the age of 63 he has wide experience and is not too closely associated with either the Right or Left wings, but neither as Leader of the House of Commons nor as Lord President of the Council with Responsibility for Devolution, has he seemed to command the political sensitivity necessary in a Prime Minister.

Only if there were absolute deadlock, would he be likely to appear as a serious candidate.

Most people will see the) front-runner as being the For-; eign Secretary (Mr James! Callaghan). He has expert-: ence of the three other great offices of State — Chancellor of the Exchequer. Home Secretary, and now Foreign Secretary — and his name has for years come top of the list in that speculation that politicians love as to who would take over if Mr Wilson fell under a bus. Good tactician Now that Mr Wilson has, as it were, provided his own bus, Mr Callaghan’s avuncular style may seem well suited to providing reassurance at a time of shock. His great strength is his skill as a political tactician. He understands as few do the nature of power in the Labour Party. He has always taken the greatest pains to preserve good relations with the trade unions, and both his record and style would be an asset in the run-up to the next round of incomes policy. Mr Callaghan’s most obvious liability is his age. When one Prime Minister lays down his burden at the age of 60, it might not seem altogether logical then to turn to a man who will celebrate his sixty-fourth birth- 1 day next week — though Mr Wilson himself went out of his way to emphasise that age should be no bar. There may also be some doubts as to the range of his interest and expertise in the' complex business of modern; government. His record as Chancellorl was not impressive, thoughl it would be unfair to blame 1 him alone for that. As For-; eign Secretary his perform-, ance as a tactical John Bull! has won much praise, though' his sense of the possible let! him down in his demand forj a separate place at the Parisi energy conference. As Prime; Minister he would be particu-; larly strong on style and as an electoral campaigner. The chances of the Chan- !

cellor of tlie Exchequer (Mr Denis Healey) would have seemed stronger a month ago. But the public expenditure White Paper upset the Left, and no doubt some others who were not prepared to make their dissatisfaction so obvious, and the vigour of his assault on the Tribune Group in the Commons last week opened wounds which have not yet had time to heal. But he is a man of formidable ability, and sometimes equally formidable , manner.

! As Secretary of State for (Defence from 1964 to 1970 [he impressed all who came [in contact with him, at home and abroad, with his grasp of the complexities. He is well versed in foreign affairs, though he performed his full quota of U-turns on the European issue, and, while as Chancellor he has made his mistakes, the speed with which he has come to grips with his subject has been remarkable. His proposals tor cuts in public expenditure in future years do not go as far or as fast as many people would like, but in the context of • Labour Party politics they are an act of courage. Mr Healey’s weakness is in his lack of sensitivity. His natural style is to give and take blows freely in argument, but it is a characteristic not always appreciated by less-robust spirits. Jenkins circle He has a capacity to give offence, personal and collective, which could prove a liability, especially in holding together the unwieldy groupings which form the Labour Party. But there can be no doubt of the force and grasp of policy issues that •he would bring to the office of Prime Minister 1 .

Of all the possible contenders, Mr Roy Jenkins and Mr Wedgwood Benn probably (command the strongest personal support—and the most active opposition. This is partly a matter of personality, partly because they are seen as the championships of the Right and Left wings, respectively. At the dispatch box he has an authority that few can j rival in the present House of (Commons. He has a grasp of his subject and can explain .lit with that quiet reasonableness that can be the most ■effective form of Parliamentary oratory these days, and !he has been ready to use .these gifts in politically- • dangerous waters. ' When first Home Secretary jin the 1960 s he showed courage and imagination in preparing the legislation that (became the Race Relations

Act of 1968. His stand on the European issue over a period of years is well known, and he won much praise, though not ’uniform approval,- for his performance as Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1967 to 1970. His two main weaknesses are his close identification with one wing of the party and his lack of that touch of vulgarity that can be such an advantage to a politician. As Prime Minister he might; find it hard to hold the Labour Party together, but his appointment would be particularly welcomed by Britain’s allies and European partners, and by many floating voters. Fertile mind Mr Benn’s position within the government and the parliamentary party is not so strong as it was. He is a most fluent speaker and skilful debater, and he enjoys the reputation of a vigorous and determined administrator. But he has also been accorded that most dangerous title in British nolitics: a wild man. In the day of Labour opposition, and again while Secretary of State for Industry, Mr Benn time and again seemed to be making the running within the party. He was fertile with ideas, and bold in deploying them. But once the European referendum was out of the way — a defeat which was also a considerable personal set-back for him — Mr Wilson found it possible to move him sideways, and slightly downwards. to the Department of Energy. Effective restraint has been put upon him through the discipline of Cabinet and Cabinet committees. This persona) loss of standing, which all politicians must expect at some time in their career, has coincided with the decline of-the Left within the Parliamentary party. Then there is the somewhat enigmatic figure of Mr Anthony Crosland. the philosopher of British socialism. If the party is wanting a man to provide it with ideas, or a conceptual framework within which to fit its policies, his claims are strong. Between choice His talent and ambition have never been in doubt.! and for years perceptive observers of British politics have seen him as a future Prime Minister. Though often regarded as essentially a man of the Right, he has not caused the same offence to the Left as others. The converse of that is that he is sometimes accused of having been too circumspect in his conduct, ever ready to rationalise but not to fight.