In the days when Hugh Gaitskell was the leader of the Labour Party, there was a deep split between the Right-wing leadership on the one side and the Parliamentary Left and the Constituency parties on the other. The main cause of the rift was the concensus politics of the leadership, not only in foreign policy, which could be said to be traditional in British parliamentary politics, but also on home affairs. This policy, in fact, had its birth soon after Gaitskell succeeded Stafford Cripps as Chancellor of the Exchequer and was the direct cause of the resignation from theAttlee Cabinet of Nye Bevan and Harold Wilson. It became known as "Butskellism" because Gaitskell's opposite number on the Tory benches, R.A.B. Butler, pursued roughly the same policy. The basis of Butskellism was that capitalism was here to stay; that, in any case, it had reformed beyond recognition and had nothing in common with the system analy— sed by Karl Marx in "Capital". Economic slumps and unemployment belonged to the past. The "New Capitalism" was identified with the Welfare State in which life could only get better and better for the great mass of the people. It was summed up by Harold MacMillan in the famous words "You've never had it so good." This theory came up against harsh reality even during the Attlee administration. British capitalism, lagging behind its main competitors, the United States, Western Germany and Japan, in technical development, simply could not sustain the draining off of a considerable part of the national resources into the social services. When it cama to a choice between the social services and private profits, it was the social services which suffered. Thus Gaitskell prepared the way for National Health charges. When Harold Wilson took over the leadership of the Party, he made it his first task to unite the warring factions. His past reputation assured him the support of the Left and he went out of his way to reconcile the Gaitskellites. While in opposition he was able to indulge in radical sounding phraseology on such issues as racialism, South Africa, the Gnomes of Zurich and many others. In power he came up against the same problem — that you can't have an expanding social service and capitalism, given the facts of capitalism in this country. Swallowing most of his past very rapidly, Wilson became the ardent exponent of concensus politics. The wheel has now turned full circle with the elev— ation of Roy Jenkins to the Treasury. Jenkins is an avowed Gaitskellite, the best disciple of the late leader. For him concensus politics is not a dire necessity or an electoral manouvre. It is something in which he really believes. Unlike some of the other Labour leaders, he does not even pretend to be a socialist. This becomes very clear - if there was ever any doubt in his reply to the question: "What kind of a socialist are you?", put to him by Kenneth Harris in last Sunday's "Observer". He replied: "I have never been greatly interested in the battle of political labels..to some extent the word socialist tended to become a sort of football which was kicked back and forth between two teams.....this tended to become a slightly meaningless argument and... I probably don't go out of my way to use’the word socialist...." According to Jenkins, the only difference between the labour Party and the Tories is that the one is "challenging and optimistic" while the other is “instinctively in favour of the established order, and is pessimistic".
In such a conception there is no room, of course, for a class analysis of the two parties and reduces their differences to that which divided the Liberals and Tories in the first two decades of this century - nothing fundamental and therefore nothing which could prevent the closest collaboration between the two parties in times of "national crisis". Faced with the current crisis of British capitalism, it is easy to forecast the shape of Jenkins' first budget. It will be a sharp attack on the living standards of the workers. Housing, education, transport and the Health services are among those which will suffer. He is also the Minister most likely to lend a sympathetic ear to Duncan Sandys' overtures for Labour-— Tory co-operation to save British capitalism. The Left will find it hard to swallow the Jenkins pill and it will undoubtedly lead to a new split in the parliamentary party which will be reflected in the Constituencies. More important, perhaps, it will harden the resistance of the Unions and presages a period of militant industrial action in the coming period.