No to Socialism. No to Bernadette – Folha de S. Paulo, March 10, 1974

by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

It seems that many readers of this newspaper, after reading the results of the British elections somewhat superficially, concluded that they indicate a moderate shift in public opinion in the United Kingdom toward the left. This impression reinforces the well-known cliché that the world is inexorably moving to the left. In turn, the cliché reinforces the idea of this “inexorable” shift. It is therefore appropriate to clarify that the British electorate’s decision had – very significantly – the effect of turning its back on the Labour left.

* * *

How so? Some readers may ask. If the new cabinet is markedly labor-oriented and succeeds a pronouncedly conservative government, how can one claim, without nonsense, that public opinion in the United Kingdom has not shifted to the left? The fact is that, in certain cases, due to a peculiarity of British law, the number of seats a party wins in the House of Commons may not reflect its share of the popular vote.

In the 1970 elections, the Conservatives obtained 46.4% of the vote, and in 1974, only 38.1%. They therefore suffered an 8.3 percentage point loss.

However, the Labor Party also suffered significant losses. In 1970, it received 43% of the vote, and in 1974, 37.2%, a decline of 5.8%. Anyone who speaks of socialist progress in the last elections is therefore mistaken.

These figures show that the United Kingdom is not moving toward either the Labour Party or the Conservatives but has begun to turn its back on both – in what direction? Toward liberalism, or rather, neoliberalism. Unlike the Conservatives and Labour, the Liberals have made remarkable progress. In 1970, they received 2,109,218 votes, or 7.4% of the electorate. In 1974, they won 6,056,713 votes, representing 19.3% of the electorate. Thus, the Liberal electorate almost tripled. If English law allocated seats exactly proportionally to the votes obtained, the Liberals would now have no fewer than 122 seats.

Now, what do the Liberals stand for?

Regarding the major social and economic issues debated during the election campaign, there is less distance between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party than between the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. In other words, the Liberals were a much more reactionary and “right-wing” opposition than the Conservatives. From this, we can deduce that the big news in the British elections was not a shift to the left but a shift to the right.

Furthermore, the decline in conservative support for the Liberals was largely due to a split among conservatives over an issue unrelated to the right-left divide. The powerful Conservative leader Enoch Powell, described by the press as the architect of the Conservative victory in the 1970 elections, this time supported the Labor Party because he disagreed with the Conservative government’s EEC foreign policy.

I just recall in passing that the small electoral parties – which, combined, had won only six seats in the previous Parliament – now have 22 in the new Parliament. This fact is of little interest to us because it is not easy for Brazilian readers to assess the ideological significance of this change, as it concerns small political groups known only in the United Kingdom.

In any case, it remains true that the party that has made the most progress is at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Labour.

I cannot conclude this article without emphasizing the defeat the Northern Irish electorate inflicted on the energetic and passionate parliamentarian Bernadette McEliskey (nee Devlin), a progressive Catholic who, during her term in office, did everything she could to shock people into re-electing her. This typically progressive tactic failed. The people said “no” to her.