Who will win the next election? The question animates the Tory Party as much as the labour movement. JEANETTE BAKER and JANE WELLS suggest that while Thatcher will not change course, a growing number of tories are counting the days till her demise. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY is clearly crisis. It no longer enjoys the uncritical support of the ruling class which it held in 1979, nor is there enough popular support to make Thatcher's re-election certain. longer, does the Tory Party offer a strong and compelling ideological vision and unity of purpose behind which to rally the often conflicting interests of capital.
A succession of policy and personality wrangles (usually held behind closed doors) which have hit the headlines over the last few months, indicate the depth of the problem facing the Conservative Party. Far more serious than the superficial problems of style and presentation, central questions of policy and politics are at stake. The divisions in the cabinet and throughout the Tory back benches are based on real political differences about how to conduct the run-up to the next election and reflect the different assessments of the "Thatcher project' and its continued usefulness to the long term aims of British capitalism.
The country's economy is in deep crisis, and the Tories do not have the answers nor can they convince the electorate that they do. Without the answers, the ideology or the conviction to carry the Tories through, they are confronted with these deep internal policy divisions. The ruling class are casting about tor new solutions and alternative leaderships. And the chances are that they may not back Thatcher for a third term. Why?
The rise of Thatcherism in the mid-1970s represented a new force in the Tory party and a break with the old traditions of paternalism and 'noblesse oblige'. Thatcherism contained within it quite radical departure from traditional Tory politics: an aggressive espousal of one particular economic theory — .i.e. monetarism; an abhorrence of almost any type of public spending; a head on attack on working class living standards and rights, and a rigid ideological commitment to private enterprise not necessarily to free enterprise, as there is often a willingness to intervene in the market to assist private (privatised) firms when necessary.
All this, more brash and 'ideological' style of politics was quite a shock to the old Tory system — bringing as it did, in politics and personnel, lower middle class interests to the forefront in the Conservative Party. Within a decade it seems, the party of landowners and prosperous industrialists has been transformed into an altogether slicker twentieth century machine run by ambitious estate agents, PR people, financial consultants and INTERNATIONAL No. 6. October/November 1986
small business people and their new money.
For as long as it worked and won the votes it was tolerated. But — as we could have warned then — monetarism can't solve the crisis of capitalism.
The unemployment figures for July show a seasonally adjusted rise of 4400, bringing the total number of people unemployed to 3.22 million — or nearly 12 per cent of the total workforce. This is a record level — even without taking into account the endless statistical tricks which the government have introduced (16 changes since 1982) to reduce the figures. Without these fiddles the figures would be over four million. And while unemployment is falling in the other big European countries, it is continuing to rise in Britain and is expected to do so until at least 1988. With no substantial reduction in unemployment expected before the next election, public opinion is quickly turning against the tories. A recent Gallup Poll found that 71 per cent of those pollec thought that the gap between rich and poor was too big and 58 per cent favour redistributive measures to correct this.
The Thatcher project hasn't worked. The crises of confidence and policy — usually so carefully guarded, headed off or simply stamped on in the Conservative Party are now available to public scrutiny. Over the last year we have been treated to some spectacular errors of judgement, U-turns in policy, cabinet rows and the gratifying sight of a Tory party scrabbling for an election strategy and strategist. These divisions within the Cabinet and Tory back benches generally on economic policy are becoming more and more pronounced as the crisis deepens and the next election draws closer.
Thatcher herself seems determined to continue with more of the same. She is totally opposed to the increases in public spending which are fast becoming the wet's rallying cry. This is clear from the autumn cabinet re-shuffle. She is expected to go for a team made up of, her loyal supporters rather than the 'balanced ticket' favoured by people like John Biffen. The team contains people of the calibre of the present Empoyment Minister, Kenneth Clarke, whose only response to the crisis is to hope that th world economy will have an upsurge next year which will drag the British economy with it. Thatcher's only concessions to the next election are plans to increase spending in certain areas such as schools, the inner city and the NHS. Fowler's plans for the NHS are probably the most important of all in terms of vote catching — yet all these amount to is an attempt to temporarily cut waiting lists inthe run up to the election.
For people like Walker, Whitelaw and even Biffen, all this amounts to is too little, too late. This is a view shared by a number of back benchers, if the rash of Tory MPs (35,at the last count) announcing that they are not going to fight the next election is any indication.
Privatisation — what, when and how — is another major line of divide between wet and dry, poll-panderers and purists in the Conservative Party. Thatcher's conviction that her plans are correct in spite of all evidence to
33 the contrary is giving the traditionalists yet
----- pull-quotes on this page ----- Behind the Tory crisis
Norman Tebbit and friend more cause for concern, and confirms their feelings that something has got to change.
The tactic of selling off profitable bits of nationalised industry at knock-down prices is partly explained by an ideological commitment to private industry, and partly by the necessity for the Treasury to get its hands on large sums of money in order to mitigate, however slightly, the effects of the government's disastrous economic policies.
In this light it is hard to explain the recent events surrounding the 'privatisation' of the Trustee Savings Bank. The legal ownership of the surplus assets of the TSB was certainly not clear when a share issue was first suggested. The government took the view that no one owned the shares, and that the money raised by the sale of the shares should stay with the bank after privatisation, instead of going to the Treasury, as would normally be the case when the nationalised industries are sold off. However it is now clear that the 'state' has full rights over the assets amounting to £800 million - and yet the government is pushing ahead with the flotation on the same basis.
This can only be explained in tems of the effect of the 'sale' of the TSB on the plans to sell British Gas in November of this ycar. This explanation, denied by the Treasurybut favoured by the Financial Weekly (24/7/86), goes like this: the government's dream of a share owning democracy has slipped a bit since the sale of British Telecom in 1984; the 'sale' of the TSB would revive the campaign and serve to popularise the notion of share ownership before the sale of British Gas gets underway. So the government reaps the benefit of the TSB's £5million flotation campaign for its own privatisation policies, in return for giving up all claims on the bank's £800 million worth of assets. Mrs Thatcher has recently suffered a reversal with the shelving of British Airways' privatisation while a trans-Atlantic air deal is worked out, and she is determined not to let British Gas get away - not if she is to keep alive the possibility of delivering the promised tax cuts. And all this despite the nature of British Gas as a natural monopoly, and the 34 strong opposition to the sale from the Chair
of British Gas, Sir Denis Rourke.
Pathological hatred of the public sector has never been a feature of traditional Toryism. Many Tory councils have resisted the pressure to privatise council services. Only 30 Tory councils privatised anything in 1985-6, and nine Tory controlled councils have recently brought back in-house some services which were previously delivered by
Taking this together with the failure to push through the privatisation of water and the British Leyland landrover division' (and the last minute rescue of the Cornish tin industry, requiring a massive injection of government subsidy) - it is clear that the Prime Minister is not having it all her own way inside the cabinet.
'the economy is in deep
crisis and the Tories do
Knot have the answer'
Foreign policy has proved to be another minefield for Thatcher and has brought her sharply — and perhaps most publicly — into conflict with influential sections of ruling
Central to current British foreign policy (and rows in the Tory party about it) is the relationship of British and American capital. The Westland scandal, of course, had more to do with a strategy of building an economic opposed to Europe within the NATO block, than with the simple accounting of takeover bids for a west country helicopter company. Heseltine, along with other sections of the ruling class, favoured a policy of building up a power base in Europe. Thatcher, as we know, preferred instead to throw in Britain's lot with Reagan and resorted to dirty tricks to make sure she won. The tact that Heseltine should pick this issue and this time to launch his bid to build an independent line and base in the Conservative Party is significant: it suggests that there is substantial support both inside the party and within the ruling class as a whole for an alternative to Thatcher — the tide is beginning to turn
against her.
Even the hard right in the Conservative Party is beginning to question the wisdom of a policy which ties Britain to so dependent a relationship with America. li the Westland row brought out the dangers in this policy and the clectorates suspicion of it, the British co-operation in the American bombing of Libya brought it home. At this point even Tebbit had to doubt, if not the correctness of the policy, at least the wisdom of pursuing it so vigorously.
The Tory 'doubters' had more success in stalling the proposed sell off of the British Leyland Landrover division to American nterests. Again, even Tebbit, mindtul of the potential damage of a re-run Westland type exposure of Britain crawling to America, Pichy his migivin the loctoraid the lobby arguing that the electorate wouldn't want to see Landrover go private (and with indecent haste) at all. Internal Tory party opposition to Thatcher over sanctions has been more organised (around Heath and the 1922 Committee) even it, so far, less effective. Again the Tory leadership's insistence on tail-ending America's political lead in order to cement an cconomic and defence alliance (and all in the face of Commonwealth, electoral and even royal opposition) has led them into conflict within the party ranks.
So if Thatcherism isn't working (and it isn't), and will have difficulty deliveries an clection victory - what are the options for the Conservative Party and for the bourgeoisic?
Thatcher's hold on the Icadership of the Tory Party looks increasingly insecure both from her own faltering grip on policy direction, and from the apparent attempts of others to unseat her.
Some sections of the left have identified the Thatcher project completely with the interests of capital. That might have been the case in 1979 and undoubtedly some substantial gains have been made for the bourgeoisie since then (the slashing of living standards along with inflation, the attacks on the trade unions ctc.). This was Thatcher's important - and accomplished — mission. Her project fulfilled the recurring need of capital to tackle a relatively well organised and militant working class in a time of economic decline head one. But with the continuing failure of the economy to recover, and the almost complete crosion of the country's manufacturing base, even the CBI are now calling for some limited reflation measures. The ruling class is therefore taking another look at its options-- and they aren't necessarily so keen on a third term with Mrs Thatcher. Not only can she not solve the present crisis of capitalism, more importantly in the short term, she may not even be able to win the next election. The ruling class needs awinner to back. If the Alliance were not so lacking in credibility and policies the mould of British politics might indeed have been broken with its emergence as a real challenger for government. But - though it's still quite carly to say — it seems most likely that the next year will see moves to restore the old policies of traditional Toryism to grace.
IDA NAMe tone/November 1986
Brookside: the rape and the