Political commentary
Du Cann's toboggan
Charles Moore
t the height of the Tory leadership crisis in the autumn of 1974, a journalist telephoned Mr Edward Du Cann, the chair- man of the 1922 Committee, and asked him whether he was loyal to Mr Heath. 'Of course I am loyal to Ted,' was the reply, 'I'm the only person in the party who is.'
It must have been a similar kind of loyal- ty which inspired Mr Du Cann to appear on `Weekend World' last Sunday to discuss the Prime Minister and her Government's dif- ficulties (the phrase 'banana skin' should now be dropped before it reaches 'Winter of Discontent' proportions). The casual viewer could have been forgiven for think- ing that not much was going on. To the un- trained eye, the smarmy gentleman ap- peared to be defending the Government, confining himself to a few helpful hints from an 'able seaman' (his metaphor) to the captain of the ship. But the eye of the cap- tain herself is trained, and one can be sure that she did not like what she saw. Mr Du Cann said that politics was like a toboggan run: 'You think you are going at five mph, but before you know where you are, you are going at 70 mph'. Could it be that Mr Du Cann himself was nudging the toboggan slightly towards that fatal slide? It would be the perfect murder — so easily written off as an accident. Only the most experienced political detective would notice the traces of brylcreem on the snow.
Like Dr Henry Kissinger in the world of diplomacy, in the secret life of the Conser- vative party Mr Du Cann is credited with semi-magical powers. His Homeric epithet is 'influential'. Barred from office by what has been called his 'chiarascuro financial background' and at the insistence of Lord (then Mr) Whitelaw, he has cultivated the idea that he understands the Tory party, mainly by the simple device of demanding the highest possible salary increases for MPs whenever the occasion presents itself. So whenever Du Cann speaks, he intends it to be a moment pregnant with significance, and it is taken as such. On Monday, Mr John Biffen said, 'I am quite certain that the Thatcher show can be kept firmly on the road.' No doubt that is exactly what he meant. The same words from the mouth of Mr Du Cann would have implied the reverse. Ah ha, we should all have said, now he's discussing her departure.
It has not quite reached that stage. Mr Du Cann preferred to recommend that Mrs Thatcher give herself a deputy (surely not unmindful of the fact that his old adver- sary, Lord Whitelaw, actually is her deputy already). He presented it as little more than a practical problem — the Prime Minister needs more sleep, surely she should have someone to change the ribbon in her type- writer, answer some of her letters etc; and he gave his advice as that of a devoted friend. But that only made it more sinister. He was trying to remind her that he helped to put her where she is, and that he helped to put Mr Heath where he is.
The comparison with the latter days of Heath is still not a good one. The more one looks back to that time, the more complete its chaos appears. Inflation and the break- down of industrial relations due to bad laws and worse incomes policies really did make Britain almost ungovernable. The shortages and scares and power cuts created the atmosphere of a war without any of war's cosy national solidarity. And yet it took two election defeats in one year for the Conservative party to pluck up its courage and get rid of Mr Heath. This time, there is no great cause or comprehensive failure around which Tory rebels can unite. The Government's position is far stronger than it was in 1981, when riots, unemployment and recession presented a picture of uniform hopelessness, and the Wets launch- ed — and lost — their last concerted attack. The ascendancy of the Conservatives over their rivals is more unquestioned than at any time since the 1930s.
A closer comparison, raised this week by Mr Biffen, is with the latter days of Mac- millan. For both then and now, the pro- blems did not arise from a split over a set of policies or a great principle, but from a series of mishaps, embarrassments and ir- ritations. Many of these difficulties of the present have been rather got up by the press. Editors have unconsciously decided, for instance, to regard every sentence spoken by sir Geoffrey Howe as a blunder. But the difference between now and many occasions on which the press tries to stir it, is that this time its complaints find an echo in the bosoms of many of the 400 who crowd the Tory benches.
Nearly a quarter of the 400 are new to the House of Commons. Most of that quarter probably came into the House believing the things about Mrs Thatcher and her Govern- ment that they had read in the Tory papers. They are therefore surprised and upset to discover that, whatever her virtues, she is not a figure of Churchillian proportions, and that being one of her backbenchers can be tedious, arduous and unrewarding. And many of those with longer experience share the sense of anti-climax. There is no Falklands war or election campaign in which Mrs Thatcher can display her inspir- ing leadership. There is only the ordinary
Despite what the papers call 'a character- istically robust dismissal from sources in Whitehall,' Mrs Thatcher has noticed all these difficulties and is trying to do something about them. She has been M01` assiduous than ever in meeting her backbenchers. After Prime Minister's Questions, she gives stilted tea parties for groups of them, arranged by Michael Alison, her PPS. Ministers are all saying dutifully how important it is for them 10 listen to their party. And a recent devel°P., ment has been the reappearance of Mr Cecil Parkinson. Mr Parkinson attracted atten- tion when he wasp revented from speaking at Essex University; but he has also been touring the country — recently Bristol, a London polytechnic, the Oxford lini°° talking up the Government of which he is no longer a member. The buzz is that he will re-enter the Cabinet in the autumn' a t But although Mr Parkinson is skilled a presenting the Government's case in t digestible and attractive manner, it is contrary to popular Tory belief, in Prese.11.; tation that the Government reveals weakness. It is no good, except in the verYes short term, making glamorous speeei'i hf about something that isn't really there. 'I, the fight against inflation now attracto' fewer headlines that is certainly a tribute he Mrs Thatcher's success in that field, hut ,er comparative quiet also reveals her 01'; e shortcomings. She is better at genera-/1:e excitement than ideas. The truth is that stil'at now has very few. We know already t to Mrs Thatcher thinks that it is too risky.on do more than tinker with the organisatt re of the welfare state. It is becoming tittin°ut obvious that she is equally vague anion what she expects from the C°111-will Market, yet in the next few months she be forced either to pull back or to be Sucked deeper in. It is not clear that she always so devoted to securing votes by protecting Port ticular interests, will continue to support Mr Lawson if he really is intent on we duce ing those interests in order to Pr° economic freedom. It is often very tiresome to hear r od cians making speeches about their grit is strategies for their country, but it sure out time for Mrs Thatcher to try to 'Orr', the and to state what she intends to do for next few years and why she intends to ;01 And there is also a lack of solid P°11bbit speeches by other ministers. Mr Tftelicy; should set out the aims of industriaIP-och' Sir Geoffrey Howe should reflect 13°Kotth on Britain's role in the EEC; Sir ser- iespmh should ooppositionul d r es t at e and da that revise et vh ee Co poerinds etrit. vatism speeches ten years ago into 'the '-'4) are vatism of government today. If ,,yotjrpn rushing downhill on the sledge 01 coo Cann's imagination, you will be PrePar told enjoy the experience only if You t.arnechers why you are doing it. Tory backi",e`t' 114 now do not know why, and they thin should be told.
Previous page
