Political Commentary
A man of sensitivity
Ferdinand Mount
And how, as Crossbencher would say, does Mr Enoch Powell feel this May morning as he props his Propertius against the Weetabix? Why, he chuckles. He smacks his lips. For what an enticing prospect is spread before him. The Liberals are shattered. Despite Mr David Steel's protestation that he will not be 'bounced into a premature ending' of the Lib-Lab pact, the party dare not much longer maintain even a formal pretence of support for the Government.
This leaves the Ulster Unionists with the sole power of life or death over this Finance Bill, this Parliament and this Government. And what do the Ulster Unionists want? What, for that matter, does Mr Powell himself want? The usual answer is that they want the Government to implement the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference that Northern Ireland should be allotted another four or five MPs at Westminster to bring its constituencies down to British .size. This increase would follow logically from direct rule by Westminster and both major parties have accepted it.
The Government is hoping to keep the Ulster Unionists dangling by saying 'of course this is an important constitutional measure which will require considerable parliamentary time, and time is scarce.' This is otherwise known as playing silly buggers. Time isn't scarce and even if it was the Bill would be a couple of clauses long and would sail through. What is not generally noticed is that it would sail through after the general election too. Mrs Thatcher has no wish foolishly to alienate the Unionists again; after all, if the Ulster Unionists had still been counted with the Conservatives in 1974, Mr Heath might still be Prime Minister (oday. And if Labour is the leading party In the next Parliament, the chances are that it would be able to form only a minority government which once again would require co-operation from Ulster. So, sooner or later, Northern Ireland will get its extra MPs anyway.
The Unionists also want Stormont back. They can't have it. And they know it. So they are only asking for a discussion document on regional government for the province to show the folks back home. No harm in that. Give the gentlemen a green paper on the way out, would you, Charles? If pressed, Ulster Unionists will dredge up a few other pet ideas. Mr Powell is always on about a gas pipeline linking Ulster with British gas (no, I didn't say we already had one, we don't make jokes like that in this column). But the lovely, unspeakable truth is that the Ulster Unionists don't reallrwant or need anything very much just now. They have already got the essential: stern, even-handed government under the Union Jack. They would prefer it, no doubt (though Mr Powell himself would not), if this Government were being carried out by Northern Irish politicians elected by the Northern Irish electorate. But Mr Roy Mason will do quite nicely.
The Ulster Unionist MPs accordingly enjoy a totally irresponsible eminence and they are loving it. They may squabble amongst themselves from time to time, as members of a small club often do. You may not have noticed that Mr William Craig recently switched from the UUUC to the UUs, both of which are of course to be distinguished from the late Lord Faulkner's UPNI (the moderates) and the Revd Ian Paisley's DUP (the hard mob), although Mr Paisley sits for the UUUC which was originally the coalition of the official Unionists (who now sit as UUs), his own DUP and Mr Craig's Vanguard party. At least I think that's it, roughly. But within these transient ululatory coalitions, the Ulster Unionists live the life of Riley — well not Riley perhaps, but the life of Ross or McCusker. How pleasant it is to have one's views consulted. Even within the little band of ten all sorts of enjoyable variations are possible. For example, if the seven UUs vote to abstain, then it would depend on what the three UUUCs — Paisley, Dunlop and Kilfedder — do. They usually vote against the Government — which would leave the Government defeated by one vote 311-312 — but they don't always turn up. And whatever the Ulster Unionists do collectively or severally about income tax, they can always do precisely the opposite in the vote of confidence which there must surely be in the autumn, if Mr Callaghan hasn't already decided to go to the country before he is forced to.
What the Ulster Unionists do depends in the last resort on what Mr Enoch Powell wants them to do. His power over his colleagues is said to be little short of Svengali's. And yet there is surely something playful, not quite serious, about the relationship. At Westminster at least Enoch and the Ulstermen revel in a common irresponsibility, It would be fun to bring the Government down, but then it might be more fun, especially for`Enoch, to frustrate the Tory hopes of office. The essential frivolity of the connection is shown by the fact that where the interests of Northern Ireland are concerned, Mr Powell cannot and could not persuade them to budge an inch from the platforms on which they were elected. But on lesser matters such as income tax, he may say what he pleases. Some bizarre things he does say too. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that Mr Healey has already set the borrowing requirement too high and that it would therefore be wrong for the Opposition to continue to use its unwonted strength to force the Government to reduce income tax —when the Opposition has not the power to reduce public spending or raise some other tax to pay for it. But not even Enoch's abiding itch to dish the Tories can explain his extraordinary argument that there ought not to be any switch from income tax to expenditure tax (VAT, beer and tobacco) because income tax is the most 'neutral' and 'sensitive' of all taxes.
It is as if Baroness Summerskill were to extol boxing gloves as less likely to do lasting damage to delicate skin tissues than bare fists. The speaker is unlikely and the argument spurious. True, tobacco duty cannot distinguish between a single affluent teenager buying a packet of cigarettes and a low-paid married man With six children doing so — though it can distinguish between grades of tar, as Mr Healey has just shown. Income tax can distinguish between per' sons, but it frequently does so only at the cost of running into conflict with the social security system which is attempting the same distinction. Two sensitives here make one insensitive in the shape of the povertY trap. Sensitivity is not in itself an argument for refusing to lower standard rates of income tax; it is possible, after all, either to keep tax allowances high while lowering tag rates or to shift more of the sensitive devices over to the social security system, as has been done in the case of child benefit. Besides, if income tax is neutral as between spending and saving, it may be far from neutral as between earning and not earning. The argument, from sensitivity is reallY just a piece of puckishness bearing about the same relation to absolute truth as the view of some Tories that they have the right to press for up to £2,000 million in tax cuts because they voted against the Gov.ernment's latest White Paper on public expenditure which they said involved spending increases of £2,000 million. Apparently, according to one Conservative, 'we have some £2,000 million moral poun4! to play with'. It is a charming concept, is it not?
'Excuse me sir, but what are these?'. 'These 'These are moral pounds, my good num.,. 'I'm afraid we don't accept Scottish ban" notes here.'
'No, no, moral pounds. They're on entirely new idea in money. You must have seen them advertised on TV.'
'I'm sorry, sir, but moral pounds say more about you than cash ever can.'
Previous page
