Wilson vs. Heath

Presidential politics today rule supreme in Britain. As local politicians scurry about in the three weeks of official campaigning which precede the general election set for March 31, they share the goal of their ward-dwelling American brethren-- sell the man.

Although familiar allegiances of class, or age, or sex still tie blocs of voters to one of the two great parties, most observers agree that the electorate in the crucial marginal constituencies will be swayed by their impression of Prime Minister Harold Wilson, or his rival, Edward Heath, Tory party leader.

Party manifesto or party labels have diminished in importance. The value of confidence, cleverness, apparent decisiveness--in short, image--is ascendent.

In announcing his decision to enter the lists against the Conservatives, Wilson noted that his party deserved a vote of confidence after "500 days in office." Any similarity between the Prime Minister and a young American President who served twice as long is hardly coincidental: Wilson, it is well known, has sought to be a British Kennedy.

He has turned out instead to be a donnish Johnson. Political commentators from all parts of the spectrum have remarked upon Wilson's exceptional political skill. His singular achievement has been to move his party in from the left, blur distinctions between the parties on a range of issues, and, at the same time, demonstrate that Labour can, after all, govern with prudence and responsibility. Even the Tories have ceased to raise the spectre of socialism's red ruin to frighten the electorate.

The fuzzing of issues, the uneasy consensus, accounts for the prominence of personality. Personality, in turn, generally accounts for the significant lead that Labour now enjoys in the public opinion polls.

Wilson has been able to paper over the cracks of disunity in his factious party, while at the same time focusing attention on issues--like Rhodesia or defense--which divide the Conservatives. Britain may not like Wilson but it admires him.

In the few months that he has been head of the shadow cabinet, Heath on the other hand has been hamstrung by the right wing of his party and hurt by his inability to match Wilson's skill in public relations. He has been unsure whether he should exorcise his old guard and modernize his party for years ahead or conciliate and present a united front to the British public in the event of a General Election.

This uneasiness has showed. Again, one doesn't have to be partisan to conclude that Wilson has thus-far out-maneuvered Heath in gaining the initiative and appearing as the man best suited to lead Britain in the sixties.

At this writing it is doubtful whether Heath can win his campaign plan. Although it has not been vocal about its position, the Labour party is today much closer to accepting the idea of the Common Market, which the Tories favor, than it was two years ago. Wilson has room to move if he deems it necessary. Further, union reform, which the Tories are also asking, is only one aspect of England's general economic malaise.

And thus far Heath has been unable to offer alternatives to Labour's economic policies which can sharply distinguish the Conservative's position. His broad aim to revitalize the British economy as outlined in the election manifesto has been met with a chorus from columnists and editorial writers: "How?"

To be sure, it is certainly arguable whether the Labour prescriptions for the economy are as dynamic as their leader. But in this campaign it may not matter; in a period of uncertainty and unpolarized politics the advantage is with the incumbent-- especially if he is Harold Wilson.

If the polls are correct, Wilson should have no trouble serving until 1971. In the 1964 general elections, Labour, by polling 44.8 per cent of the votes in Great Britain, won 314 constituencies; the Conservatives, with 42.9 per cent of the vote, gained 304. The liberals won nine seats.

If Labour can surpass their two per cent margin at the last election, Wilson should walk into Parliament in April with a substantial majority.

At the moment, Labour is talking not of a substantial majority but of obliterating the Tories and even of unseating Edward Heath.

Early this month the National Opinion Poll gave Labour a lead of 12.4 per cent and the Gallup Poll forecast an 11 per cent Labour margin.

Compared with 1964, Gallup is discerning a four and a half per cent shift to Labour which would be enough to win Labour 77 seats now held by the Conservatives and to give Wilson a majority of 167. The National Opinion Poll is showing a swing to Labour of five and a quarter per cent, enough to give Labour a majority over the Conservatives of around 190. If the swing is 4.3 per cent or more, Heath will lose his own constituency of Bexley.

Of course there are many qualifications on this forecast. Even if the election were held today, it is by no means clear that the Labour majority would be so great. Labour has led in the national polls throughout its 17 months in office, but in seven of eleven by-elections there has been a net-swing to the Conservatives. Moreover, the average shift in local council by-elections suggest that the Conservatives have kept pace with Labour.

But on balance Wilson seems in an excellent position to escape from the restrictions imposed by his present margin in Parliament. While Labour restrains the traditional support of the working class, and of all voters in the 35 to 49 age group, it may be some consolation to Heath that the Conservatives still lead in gaining the allegiance of women.