Of rebels and their causes
Patrick Cosgrave
When she recently gave up her post of Deputy Speaker — having held it for longer than anybody else — I asked Miss Bettie Harvie Anderson what the serried ranks of the House
of Commons backbenches looked like from up there in the Speaker's chair. Somewhat to my surprise she observed that, more than anything else, she had noticed an increase of independence on the part of backbenchers over her period. Now, I suppose that few of us share the very low view of backbenchers set down by the Earl of Luxmore in Mrs Craik's novel John Halifax, Gentleman. (In that novel the hero, Halifax, is invited by the earl to take a seat for a rotten borough in the House of Commons. He declines, on the ground that he has no wish to be active in politics. The earl then observes that, as a backbencher, he has no need to be so.) But, nonetheless, we do not, on the whole, think of backbenchers as men of very independent mind.
To be sure there are always a few rebels among the ranks of the older gentlemen, who are independent of any temptations of office, since none is likely to arise. And, to be sure, there are always the rebels with a specific cause, something arising out of a constituency concern or out of a bias of personal belief, which dictates opposition to the Whips (though the Whips are usually tolerant to a fault of such rebels, unless they actually threaten the Government's majority). And, finally, there are always those young sparks who attend to the advice for getting on in politics given by the great Joseph Chamberlain to, among others, the young Winston Churchill, who had just entered the House. To get on, the great man advised, you must always at some stage defend your party with the utmost rigour and courage in a situation where their position is indefensible; and attack them with equal rigour, once you are sure their position is impregnable.
However, and in spite of all that. I doubt if many people think of backbenchers as continuously stating and voting for views opposite to those of their party Whips; and there would, indeed, be singularly little point to the existence of parties if many of them did so. The psychology and purpose of the rebel, however, remain utterly fascinating, whether he is a rebel because he has been victimised, or one out of conviction, or one out of sheer temperament, or a mixture of all three. From time to time I have mentioned the activities of various rebels and gentlemen of independent mind in this column — Mr Heffer, for example, on the Labour side, and Mr Ridley on the Conservative; and Mr Powell crops up in most political writing and conversation. But I thought I would mention one or two this week who get much less of the limelight than such men, but who deserve attention for their courage.
The Labour Party has usually been richer in rebels than the Conservative, partly because it has more often been in opposition, partly because the left-wing mind in its British democratic form more readily encourages dissent with the compromises the front benches feel are forced upon them by events. At the moment, however, it is the Conserva tives who are replete with independents — there are enough to give any Chief Whip grey hairs. And the curious and pleasing thing is that they are rebels with causes in whose make-up personal ambition plays singularly little part -which is not to say that they are not ambitious men. The Common Market has produced more dissent and more rebellion — as is quite proper with so vital a matter for the future of the nation — than any other issue; but the battleground of the doctrines on which the Conservative Party won its election victory of 1970, and which were fairly promptly abandoned by a frightened government, likewise has its importance. Perhaps the three most striking Conservative rebels among the younger men — whose rebellion is supported neither by fortune nor past reputation, who have their way to make from scratch in the political world — are Mr John Biffen, the member for Oswestry, Mr Richard Body, of Holland and Boston, and Mr Roger Moate, of Faversham in Kent. All have been subjected to severe pressure from both the Whips and the Conservative Central Office, and Mr Moate was once, after a Commons debate, subjected to personal abuse by a minister of middle rank. It is almot impossible to analyse with success the motivations of such men in terms of current cant about politics: there have been moments when they could have abandoned rebellion without dishonour, and probably coniderably to their advantage, but they did not so choose.
Likewise, on the Labour side, the Common Market, though in the opposite direction, has produced its quota of rebels, of whom the most extraordinary is probably Mr John Mackintosh, the member for Berwick and East Lothian. A distinguished academic, Mr Mackintosh entered the House with a considerable reputation as a political scientist (and, alas, an equally justified reputation for a certain arrogance). Unlike many dons, and men already established in other professions — like Mr Frank Cousins, Mr John Davies, and Professor Esmond Wright — Mr Mackintosh found no difficulty in adjusting to the difficult atmosphere of Parliament. He is a magnificent orator, and has never trimmed his political sails to the convictions of others: but he has never had even the smell of preferment. One would have thought that now, with Labour very much in need of every scrap of talent it can find for its front bench — and with, not to put too fine a point' on it, at least
Spectator February 9, 1974 as many duds there as there are in the Government — a place could be found for him. But it appears not; and it may be that the undying hostility of the former SecretarY of State for Scotland, Mr William Ross — hostility said to have been aroused by Par Mackintosh's manner — is the main factor la denying to this gifted man the office which he deserves. All these rebels are, however, in one sense simple cases. They disagree flatly with their, party leadership on one or more matters 01 fundamental importance. More amazing is the case of Mr Peter Tapsell, the Conservative member for Horncastle. A friend of mine,' referring to an occasion when Mr Ridley all' Mr Tapsell appeared on the same platform ra debate incomes policy, recently observed that "it is quite proper that Nick Ridley should net be a member of this Government, since he disagrees au fond with its economic polia; But it is quite wrong that Peter Tapsell shoula not be a member, since he has consistent advocated at least some of the things —aO especially incomes policy — they have been doing long before ministers got around ta adopting them." Mr Tapsell is not always fair to his OP' ponents: he referred, for example, in a remarkable speech recently made to his coll. stituency association, to the belief that the deflation supposedly required of Mr Barber would in fact be achieved by the three-claY week and all the other measures which na; tional crisis has brought upon us. Anu described this kind of thinking as "a:1 interesting new version of the 'free marice'r philosophy" when it is, of course, nothing °.' the kind, all political free marketeers in this country being in favour of settling the dispute which, the Prime Minister tells us, the principal cause of our woe. Nonetheless' Mr Tapsell's speeches have since 1970 con; tinually outlined his belief in the necessity el a controlled economy, based on an incomes policy. When Mr Heath cracked and introduced such a policy Mr Tapsell's friends looked fcl_ his early promotion, as did many admirerisj who do not at all agree with him. Mr TaPsei is now advocating price control and foou subsidisation, observing that "No countrY not even Gomulka's Poland — has been &a's, to control wages without controlling Priceds and escape a revolution." And he defen himself against the accusation that policies 0; control have been proven failures thus: 111,e of my most intelligent friends — some of tt"e men I most respect — tell me that events haf'cv proved me wrong. They say that that Poll too has self-evidently failed. I say that it l'Ife not yet been tried." And he goes on: present policy of controlling wages withs effectively controlling prices has alWl'e seemed to me to be as unworkable as f Labour Party's fatuous alternative: to contrust prices without controlling wages. You 0'14 either control both or control neither. Mr Enoch Powell would, I think, agree Wl'is that proposition." The questionnow es whether, when the Government introdUc,ce food subsidies and further measures of Prl.,,e control, Mr Tapsell will receive that elusl.
telephone call. are Most of the Common Market rebels or continuing their fight, and 'neither theY tribe the Conservatives who still believe in ior policies of 1970 could reasonably expecf.oin Heath to ring them up and invite them t° his administration. They look to time in prove their case, and further revolutions if the Government to give their opportunttY:mr neither eventuality comes about then, like_ of Powell, they must seek 'the satisfaction, Mr their consciences. But Mr Mackintosh arl„cloakl Tapsell are altogether different. All that ',late conceivably be argued against their sel31,14 t" , cases for preferment is that they were 7'air morasatterlseast better forecasters, before
Previous page
