The Lib-Lab Pact: A Parliamentary Agreement, 1977–78

267 Pages·2016·0.918 MB·English

by  Jonathan Kirkup (auth.)

The Lib–Lab Pact
This page intentionally left blank
The Lib–Lab Pact
A Parliamentary Agreement, 1977–78
Jonathan Kirkup
CardiffUniversity,UK
©JonathanKirkup2016
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2016 978-1-137-52768-4
Allrightsreserved.Noreproduction,copyortransmissionofthis
publicationmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermission.
Noportionofthispublicationmaybereproduced,copiedortransmitted
savewithwrittenpermissionorinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthe
Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,orunderthetermsofanylicence
permittinglimitedcopyingissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency,
SaffronHouse,6–10KirbyStreet,LondonEC1N8TS.
Anypersonwhodoesanyunauthorizedactinrelationtothispublication
maybeliabletocriminalprosecutionandcivilclaimsfordamages.
Theauthorhasassertedhisrighttobeidentifiedastheauthorofthiswork
inaccordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Firstpublished2016by
PALGRAVEMACMILLAN
PalgraveMacmillanintheUKisanimprintofMacmillanPublishersLimited,
registeredinEngland,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills,Basingstoke,
HampshireRG216XS.
PalgraveMacmillanintheUSisadivisionofStMartin’sPressLLC,
175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010.
PalgraveMacmillanistheglobalacademicimprintoftheabovecompanies
andhascompaniesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld.
Palgrave®andMacmillan®areregisteredtrademarksintheUnitedStates,
theUnitedKingdom,Europeandothercountries.
ISBN 978-1-349-57632-6 ISBN 978-1-137-52769-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137527691
Thisbookisprintedonpapersuitableforrecyclingandmadefromfully
managedandsustainedforestsources.Logging,pulpingandmanufacturing
processesareexpectedtoconformtotheenvironmentalregulationsofthe
countryoforigin.
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress.
Contents
ListofTablesandFigures vi
Acknowledgements vii
Introduction 1
1 Cross-PartyCo-operationinBritishPolitics,1945–1977 4
2 Build-UptotheLib–LabPact,1974–1977 26
3 Cross-PartyDiscussions,17–20March1977 40
4 Lib–LabDiscussions,17–23March1977 49
5 CabinetDiscussionsontheLib–LabAgreement 83
6 TheLib–LabConsultativeMechanism 97
7 LiberalPartyReactiontotheLib–LabPact 126
8 PolicyImplicationsoftheFirstPhaseofthePact 155
9 TheRenewaloftheLib–LabAgreement 165
10 TheSecondPhaseoftheLib–LabPact,July–September
1977 182
11 TheFinalPhaseoftheLib–LabPact,October1977–August
1978 193
Conclusion 219
Notes 223
Bibliography 244
Index 251
v
Tables and Figures
Tables
6.1 LiberalPartyshadowadministration 101
6.2 ListofmeetingsoftheLib–LabConsultativeCommittee 103
7.1 ThreattoincumbentLiberalMPsinthegeneralelection
ofOctober1974(swingrequiredtobeunseated) 142
9.1 SwinginsupportoftheLabourandLiberalParties,
1974–1979(periodoftheLib–LabPacthighlighted) 169
Figures
9.1 OpinionpollingduringtheperiodoftheLib–LabPact
(Gallup)(ButlerandButler,1994)p.255 170
vi
Acknowledgements
Asiscustomary,itisonlyrighttosaythatthisbookwouldnothavebeen
possiblewithoutthehelpandencouragementofcolleagues,friendsand
family. From Cardiff University, the patience and advice of Pete Dorey
andStephenThorntonwereespeciallyimportant.PeterDonaldsongave
invaluable assistance through the drafting process. Sincere thanks also
gotothosewhoagreedtobeinterviewedbyme,especiallySirKenneth
Stowe,whowassokind-hearted,andMichaelSteed,whogavemefood
and lodgings. However, a very special thank-you and much love are
reservedformyMumandDad,Kathy,RichardandHannah.
vii
Introduction
Since the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition of 2010, there has
been renewed interest within British academia in the subject of coali-
tionsandcross-Partyagreements,althoughitremainsonlyasmallpart
of the wider literature of coalition bargaining.1 In spite of this, the
‘Lib–LabPact’,withitsuniquestatusastheonlyformalcross-Partypar-
liamentaryagreementinnationalpoliticsbetween1945and2010,has
beenlargelyabsentfromtheacademicliteratureonthesubject–thank-
fully,thisabsencehasmadethisbookpossible.Itis,however,necessary
to establish why this topic has not been the subject of more rigorous
academicstudyandwhatdevelopmentshaveoccurredtomakethisin-
depth academic analysis possible. Its relative neglect may be explained
bythedifficultyoverclassification.TheLib–LabPact,bydefinition,was
notaformalcoalition;norindeedwasita‘confidenceandsupply’agree-
ment. The Pact has been regarded as a ‘grey area’ in terms of analysis
of coalition forming, party systems or political parties. For students of
coalition theory it does not fit easily into the standard models and so
hasbeenlargelyoverlooked.2
For those examining the British political system, the Pact is often
viewed as little more than a rather annoying caveat or footnote, inter-
sectingthebroadernarrativeonthetypologyoftheBritishpartysystem.
Sartori(1976)viewedBritainbetween1945and1970astheperfecttwo-
party system. Meanwhile, the British party system between 1979 and
2010hasbeencharacterisedbylongperiodsofsingle-partydominance,
bytheConservativePartybetween1979and1997andtheLabourParty
between 1997 and 2010. This later historical narrative subsumed the
intensespeculationwithintheacademicliterature,concurrentwiththe
Lib–Lab Pact, which speculated about whether British politics was in
factdivertingtoamulti-partysystem.Aseriesofpublicationsreassessed
the British political system, often with an emphasis on minor parties,
1
2 TheLib–LabPact
hung parliaments and minority government.3 The fact that the 1980s
and1990s,incontrasttothespeculationnotedabove,werenotcharac-
terisedbyperiodsofminoritygovernmentsorhungparliamentsmeant
that the Lib–Lab Pact, as an example of cross-party co-operation, had
no substantive legacy. It did not achieve one of its primary aims, a
realignmentinBritishpolitics.Equally,itisimportanttonotethePact
had no discernible impact on the formation of the SDP or the subse-
quentSDP–LiberalAlliance.4 Consequently,thedominantnarrativeon
thePact,withintheacademicliterature,hasbeenthatitwaslittlemore
thanapragmaticresponsebyaprostrateLabourPartygoverningwith-
out a parliamentary majority, facing an impending vote of confidence
and a subsequent general election, which a beleaguered Liberal Party
equallywishedtoavoid.5
Clearly,themerefactthataneventorissuedoesnotfitwithinamodel
typology or a standard political narrative does not automatically pre-
clude it from further academic study. Why then has the Lib–Lab Pact
beenoverlooked?Perhapsthemostimportantreasonfortheabsenceof
anyin-depthacademicanalysisundertakeninthelast30yearshasbeen
the existence of two books, published almost contemporaneous with
the Lib–Lab Pact and written by two leading protagonists. The first is
MichieandHoggart(1978)ThePact:TheInsideStoryoftheLib–LabGov-
ernment, 1977–78. The second is David Steel’s own publication on the
Pact: A House Divided: The Lib–Lab Pact and the Future of British Politics,
large sections of which were transposed in Steel’s 1989 autobiography
Against Goliath. In the absence of primary source material, these publi-
cations have largely acted as the ‘core texts’ for those researching the
period.6
While both books are broadly historically accurate, there are clear
problems with relying on these works as the definitive retelling of
the Lib–Lab Pact. To address Michie and Hoggart first, their book was
publishedbeforetheconclusionofthePact.Theproblemshereareself-
evident: retrospective analysis and the placing of the Lib–Lab Pact in
a wider political context are clearly precluded. Second, the book was
published not as an academic study but as a commercial endeavour.
Simon Hoggart, the co-author, was a journalist for The Guardian news-
paper. As such, as Michael Steed observes, the style and prose are not
academicintoneandareattimessensationalist.WhileAlistairMichie,
politicalaidetoDavidSteelduringmuchoftheLib–LabPact,didhave
accesstomostoftheLiberalPartymaterialrelatingtothePact,Labour
Partyandofficialgovernmentdocumentswerenotathisdisposal.7 The
reliancebyacademicsonMichieandHoggart(1978)andSteel(1980and