sign in sign up
<<
Home , Arthur Henderson, Bob Mellish, David Blunkett, Denis Healey, Giles Radice, Peter Shore

REVIEWS

Radice records, at the 1981 La- ce’s third element in their inter- Hennessy) that he said: ‘There bour conference when Denis action, which makes the exercise were a lot of them who are clev- Healey defeated for of a triple biography worth tell- erer than me; but I am here and the Deputy Leadership by four- ing in this form: ‘When personal they are not.’ There was no doubt fifths of one percent. In his di- ambitions collided, mutual co- which trio of old rivals he had ary, wrote on the operation was precluded.’ particularly in mind. evening of the Healey victory: So it was that time and chance Giles Radice’s book goes a ‘By beating Benn, however nar- delivered No. 10 to Jim Cal- long way to explaining how he rowly, has saved the laghan. When Jim was elected outsmarted them all. Labour Party.’ If that is so, then I leader of the Labour Party and played a part in that rescue. My appointed Prime Minister in Lord (Tom) McNally is Deputy final vote as a Labour Member of March 1976, it was to me (not, Leader of the Liberal Democrats in Parliament was to vote for Denis as stated in the book, to Peter the . Healey at that conference. It was my parting gift to a Labour Party to which, as told me at the time, I owed every- thing. But I have my doubts wheth- His books were read er any of our three heroes could have led the Labour Party better : A Life at the Centre or more effectively in the 1960s and 1970s than the ‘consensus’ (Macmillan,1991; 658pp) leaders, Wilson and Callaghan. Reviewed by Conrad Russell The structure of the party gave too much power to the trade ell me. Where is fancy bred? power in the end than any of- unions (fine when the unions Or in the heart. Or in fice-holder, and Roy was one of are in the control of the right, Tthe head?’ these. Though he may have been poison when controlled by the ‘ Shakespeare’s question has cu- the most successful post-war left – as may shortly riously been answered by mod- Chancellor of the Exchequer, find out). In addition, the Benn ern science and the answer is in that, by comparison, was a minor reforms on reselection emascu- the head. One may ask the same achievement. lated the Parliamentary Party so question about political power. It underestimates Roy Jenkins that most of them opted for the Is it bred in the heart of govern- even to describe him as a great ‘quiet life’ option of Michael ment, in political thinker. When candi- Foot when Jim Callaghan belat- – and perhaps in No. 11 – or is dates are nominated for election edly stood down. it bred in the ideas that are the to the British they Politics is about great issues. petrol such people take from the may be proposed on honor- But it is also about personalities pumps to put in their engines? ary grounds for their service to and how their weaknesses and Politics is Roy Jenkins was perhaps scholarship through public life. strengths play on the great issues. the first major politician since Roy, defender of literary merit, Radice does not allow his ad- about great Gladstone to pursue both sorts Chancellor of University, miration for his subjects to blind issues. But of political power at once. That drafter of the academic freedom him to their flaws. Tony Crosland is why, though great it is, the amendment of 1988, deserved could be cavalier and peevish, it is also sequence of such a nomination. Yet the biog- Roy Jenkins pompous, and – Chancellor of the Exchequer rapher of Gladstone, Dilke and Denis Healey, in Roy Jenkins’ about per- – President of the European Asquith as a historian of standing memorable phrase, carried light Commission grossly underesti- in his own right also deserved a ideological baggage on a heavy sonalities mates his importance. Plenty of nomination. I know of no-one gun carriage. In the end all that and how twentieth century prime minis- since who deserved this tells us is that politicians, like ters – Home, Major, Callaghan consideration on both grounds the rest of humanity, have human their weak- even Wilson – did less to shape at once. failings and weaknesses. Whether twentieth century politics than What has not been remarked a politician gets to the top or not nesses and he did. If one calls a man a Calla- upon is the extent to which his depends as much on time and ghanite it has no meaning. If one academic and his political work chance as on personal qualities. strengths calls him Jenkinsite this instantly concentrated on the same issue. Yet what led to Crosland, Jenkins play on tells us what we can say to him The link is perhaps made most and Healey all failing to reach and what we cannot. Those who clear in the Dimbleby Lecture. Number 10 – although at vari- the great prepare the language politicians He said that the British political ous times all three had both their feed into their brains have more system had not changed much time and the chance – was Radi- issues.

Journal of Liberal History 39 Summer 2003 53 REVIEWS since 1868, but Britain had death wish, it was indeed eclipsed his own was small and notewor- changed very much in those four years later. thy. Among my contemporaries, years, so that stability risked turn- Once it had collapsed it stayed Bob Maclennan was one of its ing into ‘stultifying political ri- collapsed. It is characteristic of recognisably distinguished figures gidity’. He was interested in two ‘first past the post’ that once a from the early sixties onwards. moments when such pressure party becomes a clearly estab- On the other hand the frequent for change ran into conflict with lished second it is very hard to pairing together during the sev- the political system. One was the dislodge. As Machiavelli said: enties of and rise of the Labour Party and the ‘there is great difficulty in seizing Reg Prentice – of which there other its fall. The big question of the estate of the Turk but once it is a good deal in A Life at the twentieth-century politics that is taken, great ease in holding it’. Centre – is sheer illusion. They Roy did not become conscious It is that great ease which has were united in certain negative of until around 1975, but which kept a Labour Party recognised propositions aimed at Tony Benn may have haunted him since as obsolescent by 1959 firmly and but we can 1959, was whether the rise of the in its place in spite of all inward see now that they were united Labour Party was a blind alley decay. It is almost impossible in very little else. Reg Prentice and a wrong turning. Did it have now for people who learnt their in his final Conservative years any continuing use or should it politics after the beginning of in the House of Lords showed be marked ‘Return to Sender’? the to understand himself an unadulterated right- Both the rise and the decline the extent to which the Labour winger of a sort who sometimes of the Labour Party force us to Party of those whose beliefs made me prefer . consider the electoral system. It were formed before 1939 was He reminded me of Donne’s line is not clear whether Roy noticed in hock both to Moscow and to ‘busy old fool, unruly sun, go the relevance of the electoral sys- Marx. Roy Jenkins in A Life at choose sour prentices’. Not even tem to Labour’s rise. The key evi- the Centre complains that he and her worst enemy in the grip of a dence is printed only by Colin Tony Crosland were two of only nightmare could have said any of Matthew in his Gladstone Diaries. three members of the Labour this of Shirley Williams. The Liberal Party of the 1890s Club committee at Oxford who With these came a tradi- needed to attract the growing were not on the Moscow line tion that I identified under the group of working-class politi- on questions such as the Russian name of Comrade Blimp, which cians. It was doing well enough invasion of Finland. The result was Labour only because it for a while, but the near abolition was that they decided to split was working class, while being of the two-member constituency the Club and won a comfortable thoroughly reactionary on eve- in 1885, struck it a near-fatal victory among the membership. rything else. was a blow. In 1891 Stuart Rendel of Roy was Treasurer of the demo- prime example of this tradition. that ilk submitted a memo to cratic socialists and Iris Murdoch Gladstone in which he pointed of the Moscow traditionalists. out that Liberals in a two-mem- The resulting correspondence ber constituency were prepared between ‘Dear Miss Murdoch’ to choose a working-class can- and ‘Dear Comrade Jenkins’ is didate for the second seat, just as the beatification of incongruity. they are often prepared now to Perhaps the importance of this choose a woman for the second Marxist presence is the extent place on a list. Given single- to which it created a confusion member constituencies they of identity on the Labour right. ceased to choose the working- The persistent awareness of the class candidates. The result was ennemi a gauche enabled them to that , Ramsay Mac- hold together an unnatural unity Donald and against Marxist or Communist all applied for nominations to infiltration and, more seriously, safe Liberal seats and were turned inhibited many of them from down. With those three on developing genuine ideals that board the Liberals would surely they actually held but which they have been in a far stronger posi- made known to very few at the tion to repel Labour boarders. tine. I never knew at the time Roy’s work, and particularly his of Roy’s proposed programmes Asquith, demonstrate a Liberal for Labour of 1959 (A Life at the Party that in 1914 was very far Centre p. 130) but I would have from ready for eclipse and yet, been delighted to have done so. thanks to a quirk of the electoral The liberal right to which system as well as its own internal Roy belonged and that he made

54 Journal of Liberal History 39 Summer 2003 REVIEWS He once tried in the late 1980s The twenty- save that of colonial freedom The question that needs explain- to divide the House of Lords in are as much keys to the future as ing over Europe is why there has favour of the closed shop and three the past. Some, such as ‘whether been so little meaningful dia- failed because he could not find we can expose and destroy the logue about it. More than any- a fellow teller. The issues of the months abuses and inefficiencies of where else the two sides in Brit- sixties – race and social liberal- contemporary private industry ain have talked past each other ism as well as Europe – split this of Roy without only offering the ster- like ships in the night, generating group apart and exposed what Jenkins’ ile alternative of an indefinite more heat than light. When Jim had always been an artificial extension of public monopoly’, Callaghan spoke of the need to unity. There is very little sign tenure at are at the very cutting edge of preserve ‘the language of Chau- in A Life at the Centre that Roy the current debate within the cer’, what would he have done Jenkins perceived the artificiality the Home Liberal Democrats. That mem- if he had known that Chaucer of these alliances on which he bers of the Labour Party had got wrote equally well in English, perforce depended. The shock of Office re- there forty-four years ago and French and Latin, because he did his split with Gaitskell over Eu- main for were unable to move on is surely not know which of them would rope equally illustrates this lack a terrible indictment of their survive? The more that Enoch of eye for the crevasses under the me one of party. It seems that such ideas, by Powell and ranted snow of their glacier. Bill Rodg- inserting something positive in about sovereignty the better a ers remaining seated with his the high- the face of the negatives that had European they made me. No arms folded and Dora Gaitskell held the Labour right together, wonder Roy Jenkins could not lamenting that ‘the wrong people est points simply exposed a depth of differ- prevail by reason. He was unable are cheering’ illustrate this to of British ence that had long been latent. to address the issues that con- perfection. It was not just Roy’s - cerned his opponents because Only some of the Labour politics peanism that raised this spectre. as soon as he conceded they had right were ever democratic His at the Home Of- any importance he would have socialists. They were a miscel- since the fice did so just as much and still been forced to abandon his own laneous crew of party bosses, does on some parts of the Labour beliefs. ambitious parliamentarians, war. He was benches . It was this that Against this background Roy working-class chip wearers (of the great- led Ernst Armstrong to tell Roy, was forced for lack of any other whom is a survi- when he contemplated him as a political outlet to set out on the vor), isolationists, and people like est Home successor to Wilson, that he had course that led to the Alliance. who are best long expected to support him The clash with classified as mercurial. They were Secretary ‘but the party was now so fragile once again encapsulated the in- not a stable base for any move- that it needed Callaghan’s bed- coherence of the Labour right. ment. Some of the worst sufferers since Sir side manner’. Maybe it did but The path has been slow because were people like Bill Rodgers Robert there were people who would neither Labour nor Conserva- who were genuine idealists but have gone to the stake for Roy’s tive were as efficient or as sin- spent so long policing the left Peel. measures at the Home Office, gle-minded in their attempts to touchline that their idealism was including his incipient policies commit suicide as Asquith and not made visible even to those on gender and race. Who would Lloyd George. Give them time who would happily have admired have gone to the stake for Jim – they are certain to get there in it if it had been. Bill Rodgers Callaghan? The twenty-three the end. In reading A Life at the on criminal justice is a Liberal months of Roy Jenkins’ tenure Centre and then today’s paper on through and through, but there at the Home Office remain for Europe (22 May) I read of a story is nothing in A Life at the Centre me one of the highest points of that is still going on. Europe, and very little in Labour politics British politics since the war. He like Mount Everest, is there and which might have led anyone to was the greatest Home Secretary while it is, so will we be, for we realise it. since Sir . are the only party that is capable Roy was beginning the search In 1974 Roy submitted a of running a government that has for a new creed as early as his memo in favour of PR to the to deal with it. Roy will be able New Fabian Essays of 1952 in Labour cabinet. It was shot down to enjoy Hilaire Belloc’s epitaph: which he said that Marxist-Len- in flames by inism was ‘more interested in – his causes were not hers. As When I am dead, I hope it may capital maldistribution as a flaw Roy always said, Labour was a be said, to be used for the overthrow of coalition and that coalition was His sins were scarlet but his the system than in an evil to be falling apart. Thus the rivalry books were read. rectified for its own sake’. His over Europe that has riven all seven great issues of today and political parties except the always tomorrow set out in a Spectator internationalist Liberals was a Conrad (Earl) Russell is a Liberal article of 1959 indicate a pro- consequence as well as a cause Democrat spokesman in the House gramme in which all of the issues of instability in the Labour Party. of Lords.

Journal of Liberal History 39 Summer 2003 55