REVIEWS the result is a refreshing mix Dr Tim Benson is Director of the that makes fascinating reading Political Cartoon Society, an organi- for anyone interested in cur- sation for those interested in history rent affairs, one which will also and politics through the medium of be appreciated by students of cartoons. politics, history, journalism and Visit www.politicalcartoon.co.uk cartoon art.

When personal ambitions collide, mutual co-operation is precluded Giles Radice: Friends and Rivals: Crosland, Jenkins and Healey (Little, Brown & Co., 2002), 382 pp. Reviewed by Tom McNally

et us start with the con- narrative parallels Dangerfield’s clusion. Giles Radice has The Strange Death of Liberal Eng- Lwritten an important land in seeking to explain how book, a very readable book and both a political establishment and one that entirely justifies the a political philosophy lost its way. many favourable reviews it has I watched this story unfold received since its publication in first of all as a Labour Party re- September 2002. By the device searcher in the mid- and late them. In that respect Tony Blair of interweaving the careers and sixties, then as International Sec- and Gordon Brown did learn the ambitions of Anthony Crosland, retary of the Labour Party from lessons of history by cementing Roy Jenkins and Denis Healey, 1969–74 (the youngest since their own non-aggression pact, Radice is able to tell the tale of Denis Healey, who served in the and reaped their full reward for the rise and fall of social democ- post from 1945–52), followed by so doing. racy within the Labour Party in the position of Political Secretary We will never know whether a way that is both readable and to Jim Callaghan from 1974–79, the battles which Neil Kin- understandable to those com- and finally as a Member of Par- nock began in the mid-eighties ing fresh to this period of recent liament from 1979–83. As Denis and Tony Blair completed in contemporary history, while be- Healey once memorably told the nineties could have been ing positively unputdownable for me, it was a vantage point from achieved a decade earlier by a those of us who lived through it which you could peep under more resolute and united centre- as active participants. the table and see the true colour right. I have my doubts. Those The Wilson Government of the political knickers people who remained deny it, but the of the 1960s had probably the were wearing. analysis presented to me by Bill cleverest cabinet of the twentieth Although the book is the sto- Rodgers, when in 1981 I left the century. Radice’s three heroes ry of the rivalry of a triumvirate, Labour Party to join the newly were among the cleverest of my old boss, Jim Callaghan, is a formed SDP, is, I believe, valid: the clever. I disagree with Giles kind of Iago figure, a brooding ‘Tom, what we are doing will Radice that they were the Blair- presence in the narrative whose force the Labour Party to either ites of the 1960s. Both singly and influence on the unfolding trag- reform or die. If it refuses to re- collectively they had an intel- edy is a malign one for our three form then the SDP will replace lectual depth to their politics and noble failures. it.’ Faced with that stark choice, their convictions, the absence of Radice’s central thesis is prob- Labour chose to reform, but which is the most disturbing as- ably true: if mutual jealousies and there was not much stomach for pect of the post-1997 New La- ambitions had not prevented it, it before the arrival of the SDP, bour government. Yet this trio of an alliance between Crosland, as a close examination of the heavyweights, whose basic politi- Jenkins and Healey at almost any careers of some Cabinet mem- cal philosophies were remarkably time between the late sixties and bers would testify. Although the close, lost the battle for the soul the mid-seventies could have de- key reforms lay a decade ahead, of Old Labour. In a way, Radice’s livered the premiership to one of the defining moment came, as

52 Journal of Liberal History 39 Summer 2003 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 Tony Benn 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, Giles Radice 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, Denis Healey 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 House of Lords. Healey at that conference. It was my parting gift to a Labour Party to which, as Roy Hattersley 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 Roy Jenkins: 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 Tony Blair 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 10 Downing Street 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 Academy 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 Oxford 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 Home Secretary 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 John Morley 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