Britain: Safety First

British and American elections have not fallen in the same year since 1924. Then, most voters in both countries supported what they considered the safest party; Calvin Coolidge was returned to the White House and Stanley Baldwin to 10 Downing Street. Today, in a time of general prosperity and after the shock of the assassination of an American President, the candidates who appear safest will again probably win. And while there is no mystery about the identity of the safe candidate in this country, it is difficult to say just who he is in the United Kingdom, before the election this Thursday.

As incumbent Prime Minister and Conservative Party leader, Sir Alec Douglas-Home might seem the automatic safe choice, but he isn't. His experience in foreign affairs does not compensate for his almost perfect ignorance of economics. He must depend on the competence and experience of his chief ministers to overshadow the talents of the Labour Party's "one-man band," Harold Wilson.

British elections are still contests between parties, not just between the two leading candidates. But it is to Labour's advantage to show off Wilson--who in 1946 became the youngest Cabinet minister since William Pitt--and to play down the relatively untested Labour Front Bench. The Americanization of British politics has proceeded to such a point, then, that an unwary observer might conclude that Harold Wilson is standing for some national office, rather than for reelection in his constituency of Huyton, a suburb of Liverpool.

Another "un-British" aspect of the campaign is heckling, unusually savage this year. On several occasions Douglas-Home has been unable to make himself heard over angry jeers. The hecklers have reintroduced the excitement and bitterness that have been missing for several months. During August and September, apathy dominated the campaign, as Britain enjoyed the kind of extraordinarily fine weather and general prosperity which preceded Harold Macmillan's great Tory victory in the fall of 1959.

The consistent heckling of virtually every political leader has brought responses which have stirred interest in the election. Sir Alec has been helpless before the hostile crowd. Even worse, Education Minister Quintin Hogg (who used to be Lord Hailsham) replied to a heckler in Plymouth: "If you can tell me there are no adulterers on the Front Bench of the Labour Party you can talk to me about Profumo." Other indiscretions came from R.A. Butler, the Conservative foreign secretary, who told a reporter, "Things might start slipping in the last days. They won't slip toward us."

These Conservative errors have done for Labour what Labour could not do for itself. They have dissipated the general apathy which was undoubtedly helping the Tories. Earlier in the campaign, Mr. Wilson and his subordinates could not change the languid mood with their bland talks on housing, pensions, and education. But once voters--especially floating or undecided voters--began to take interest in the election, they seemed to respond more favorably to the issues Labour raises than to Sir Alec's favorites: the independent nuclear deterrent and the dangers of nationalization. And the possibility of a balance of payments crisis has reduced the appeal of the Tory prosperity.

Psephologists agree that a few floating voters in a few--less than 100--marginal constituencies will probably decide the election. For almost two years, these voters deserted the Conservatives, and Labour's margin in the popularity polls was as high as 17 per cent--and seldom dropped below ten. Only during the August holiday this year did the Tories rally and, helped by prosperity and apathy, they finally took the lead in all three major polls early this month. The usual Labour surge at the beginning of the campaign period came a week late, but it did come; Labour recovered in all the surveys and now has a six point edge in the Gallup poll. More decisively, Labour has consistently polled higher percentages in the marginal constituencies than in the nation as a whole.

Less tangible evidence suggests that voters have accepted Labour as the safer party. The Conservative boom appears shaky, and the Tories have clearly not made the kind of economic and social changes that Britain needs to keep up with the U.S. and the Common Market. Conservative politicians have appeared unsure while Mr. Wilson and his party--even when the polls went against them--were confident and optimistic.

Most psephologists, after two months of speculation on a Tory comeback, are predicting a small Labour majority in the next Parliament. Stock market prices are down in anticipation of a Labour victory, and Ladbrooks's "bookmakers to the Establishment," puts the odds at 1-3 for Labour and 9-4 for the Conservatives. Labour looks like the safer bet.