4 §OCIETY

TODAY

Candidates

Never mind the quality feel the width

There is a greetings card on the market which announces that "THIS IS NATIONAL SEX WEEK" and, inside, exhorts the recipient to "give 'til it hurts." In this supposedly permissive age when unisex is all the rage it is presumably the sort of message that can be sent either from boy to girl, or girl to boy; or indeed, from one so-called 'gay' person to another. Regardless, the meaning is clear: quantity rather than quality is what counts.

And nobody has taken it more to heart than the faceless men who run our three main political parties. In this Year of the Elections (as my friendly neighbourhood Chinese shopkeepers are already calling it) they seem to have decided that blanket coverage of all the constituencies is, of itself, a political virtue.

Labour has proudly announced that it is fighting all the 623 constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales. The Conservatives are fighting all except the Wirrall where the Speaker, a former Conservative, is seeking re-election. The Liberals, with an eye to future proportional representation rather than with any real hope of winning a great many seats, seem overjoyed to be fielding 100 candidates more than they did in February, thus contesting all the seats in England and Wales save Lincoln (out of' sympathy for the lone-ranging Dick Taverne, presumably), and all but five in Scotland.

So a total of 1862 men and women have been found by the three main party managers to be suitably fit and proper persons to carry the party banner into battle.

Well, bully for them. But is it bully for us, the long suffering, ear-bashed, goggle-eyed voters?

Frankly, I'm not so sure. And even more frankly, the more of these parliamentary candidates I meet, the less sure I am.

For they're a decidedly odd lot. And I begin to suspect that the disrepute into which politicians generally have fallen is largely due to the fact that we voters have begun to suss them out while they're still candidates and before they get anywhere near the hot air palace on the Thames.

Now I don't doubt for a moment that a great many — perhaps even the majority — of these ladies and gentlemen are pure in heart and sincere of intention; indeed they may even be quite properly house-trained and kind to animals as well.

But is the chap on the doorstep doing his damnedest to be all things to all men all the time going to be any good if and when he gets to Westminster and is subject to the conflicting pressures of consti tuency caucus and party Whip? Is the lady on the platform who obviously knows the manifesto and the Candidates' Handbook off by heart going to keep her promises when all her party's policies are seen to be impractical in the light of events?

Or are they both going to turn out to be lobby fodder?

"He's a splendidly hard worker," one agent remarked before introducing me to his candidate.

"So's my cleaning lady," I felt like saying. "And trustworthy, too. But she's not standing for Parliament."

Now as it turned out the gentleman in question was very obviously

a very hard worker. I .even agreed

with much that he said. And at a pinch — and if I had the cash — I would undoubtedly buy a secondhand car from him. But I'd ask for a warranty to go with it.

And the warranty is the one thing that no candidate can pro vide. So unless we are to vote simply for a.party line we must look for other qualities.

"Calibre," suggested someone. "That's something damn few of 'em have," opined somebody else.

True or not, the fact is that not many voters have the opportunity of deciding for themselves whether or not a candidate has calibre or anything else. For few ever get around to actually meeting the candidates who are canvassing their support at the polls. We have to take them on trust from our local selection committees.

Which brings us full (vicious?) circle back to our original 1862 main party candidates. And some more questions.

Who chose them and can we trust them? And why were they chosen? Was Mr Snooks selected because of his experience or because his false teeth didn't rattle? Was Ms Pringle selected because of her genuine concern for the cornmrinity or because of her flashing eyes and record of services to the Party? Was Toby Downychin nominated because of his ability or because he needed the experience? Or is he simply a hard worker?

And even more to the point, why were they chosen at ail? Was it because the local caucus thought they were in with a chance? Or because the various central offices, with their quantitative policy in mind, had instructed all the constituency parties to get a candidate into the field to show the flag, regardless of his/her chances of winning?

Whatever the answers to these and dozens of other questions, the fact remains that they've fielded a record number of candidates. And looking down the list — well, I don't know whether they scare their opponents but they scare the hell out of me. And, I suspect, of thousands of other voters.

However, two things are certain.

1) Now that everyone has conveniently forgotten Northern Ireland, only 623 of them can win their way to Westminster. 2) And we, the voters, are being asked to GIVE, GIVE, GIVE — even though for many of us it really will hurt.

Perhaps that's the reason why so many of us are now a bit cynical about politics in general and politicians in particular.

lain Scarlet has himself been a candidate!