POLITICAL COMMENTARY Hugh Macpherson
A northern publisher of parliamentary information has recently advanced the laudable theory that Parliamentary Lobby journalists might be replaced by a computer into which was fed all available information about politicians — their speeches, television interviews, voting records, and so on — and out of which would come essential predictions about their future conduct and attitudes. Like all ecological manipulations, of course, such a drastic action could have untold consequences. For example unemployment among the nation's barmen might well reach epidemic proportions, and God alone knows what the computer would do with the wealth of data provided by Mr Charles Pannell on Parliamentary Procedure, or the views of Mr Jo Grimond on anything.
Still, since the idea achieved the constitutionally significant position of lead paragraph of the Times Diary it is essential to demonstrate the absurdity of the suggestion if, for no other reason, than to reassure the hard-working men who tread the corridors of the Commons on behalf of the Times that their romantic European hearts are not to be replaced by an IBM printed circuit.
Rebellion is much in the air of Parliament these days and one of the reasons why Sir Alec Douglas-Home trundled off to Rhodesia to see the unspeakable rebel Smith, whom he would not normally employ as a ghillie, was the evidence that there might be a really substantial rebellion among Tory right wingers, this Wednesday, on the question of the renewal of sanctions. Coming hard on the heels of the Europe rebellion, this was more than the party could contemplate. Hence Sir Alec's departure clutching his knightly honour in one hand and his reputation in the other, to meet the Billy Liar of Central Africa instead of just allowing sanctions to wither away.
Let me enunciate the First Law of Political Rebellion: opprobrium diminishes in inverse proportion to the height from which the rebellion is staged. There are many historical instances of this of which Sir Winston Churchill provides a prime example, changing party, office and political stance more often than many a salesman changes his car. Indeed Sir Winston was rarely ever right — save on one vital issue which assured him a place in history — but from an early point in his career he rebelled from high offices of state. Joe Chamberlain, Lloyd George, Wilson, Macmillan all rebelled with success. Even the patron saint of the Labour party, Aneurin Bevan, could not have survived such a drastic change •in attitude as he did over the possession of nuclear weapons if he had not achieved considerable stature before rebelling. Many of his supporters believe that Mr Jenkins is in this position and certainly no matter how much offence his rebellion has caused in the Labour party throughout the country if Mr Wilson were forming a government tomorrow he would find a very prominent place in it for the former Chancellor.
The Law has become slightly fudged since the Wilson administration. Not only is opprobrium of rebellion diminished by political stature but it is now possible to slip out of politics, either on a temporary or permanent basis, into comfortable occupations provided by political opponents whenever they find the candidate suitable to their needs. Examples of this have been Mr Aubrey Jones' going to the Price and Incomes Board, Lord Hill to the BBC and, more recently, Mr Richard Marsh to British Rail.
For some time now the Conservative Party have looked with interest at Mr Michael Stewart. In fairness it must be said that this was before he became a Market rebel, and Mr Stewart fits as easily into the role of being a rebel as Mrs Mary Whitehouse would into that of being a Bunny Girl. The role to which the Tory party thought him admirably suited — backed heavily by the Foreign Office — was that of Ambassador to Moscow.
At first glance this seems an improbable choice but on reflection it could be a master stroke. Mr Stewart has the stature of a former Foreign Secretary and, more important, has a capacity for dehydration unrivalled in modern politics. If a stony faced Kremlin official arrived at the British Embassy clutching a three foot thick brief on the use of whale blubber Mr Stewart would have him hypnotised and seen off in a mere matter of six or seven hours. Indeed it could have the deepest diplomatic effect on the Russians since the days when Sir Stafford Cripps dispensed nut cutlets in the Embassy during the dark days of the war. Unfortunately Mr Stewart has become more valuable, of late, to the government as a man who might vote with them occasionally during the passage of enabling legislation for entry to Europe.
If no computer could work out these variations on the First Law of Rebellion with regard to Mr Stewart the task would be no easier in the case of Mr George Thomson, former European Emissary of the Wilson Government and perhaps an even more enthusiastic European than Mr Jenkins. Mr Thomson, besides having considerable ability, is a pleasant amiable man. He is considered a hot tip for one of the two powerful jobs of Commissioner in the EEC, should Britain finally enter. That all seems straightforward enough but what computer could possibly cope with the corollary to the First Law of Political Rebellion which states that top rebels must leave the options open until the last minute?
The case of Mr Thomson provides an excellent example. During the course of those troubled gatherings of the Parliamentary Labour party last week Mr Ian Mik,ardo upbraided Mr Thomson for casting doubts, in an interview with a foreign paper, on the sincerity of Mr Wilson's statement in the House of Commons that the Labour party would renegotiate some of the terms obtained by the Tories. Mr Mikardo took the view that the , sincerity of others should not be doubted, least of all that of the Party leader. Mr Thomson rose to his feet and duly perished such an unworthy thought. His rebuttal was accepted.
The interview which had given offence was with the influential German newspaper Handelsblatt. A literal translation of one passage reads: Thomson expresed the opinion to Handelsblatt that it would be against all Government practice that a subsequent Government should attempt to terminate an existing agreement and take England out of the EEC. He pointed to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition, Wilson, did not lay down such a course of action for the Party but, to the contrary, did everything possible to prevent the acceptance of a Resolution to this effect at the Labour Party Conference. Thomson expressed scepticism and reticence in regard to Mr Wilson's Speech in the Commons on ThursaY, according to which a Labour Government would attempt to open up new negotiations in Brussels in order to achieve better conditions, above all concerning the Agricultural policy and England's contributions to the Common Fund.
The above only provides examples of the difficulties in interpreting the First Law of Political Rebellion. There are others which would short circuit any computer yet invented. For example, the Second Law states: Middle Ranking Ministers should only threaten rebellion if it is certain they will not succeed. And the Third Law states: Back Bench Government Rebels should only take part in rebellions if it is certain they will succeed. Lobby Correspondents can sleep safely in their beds; the computer cannot replace them. And I can do something of which no computer is capable by wishing Mr Stewart and Mr Thomson a most happy future.
Previous page
