Political commentary
A bearded occasion
Charles Moore
CV-ou can say what you like about
1. bearded people . . .', one bearded Liberal delegate began. Can we? Well then, here is this column's view. There is nothing necessarily wrong with beards. They look well on Greek Orthodox priests, and suitable if not attractive on witches. Mr Tony Greaves of the Association of Liberal Councillors could conceivably look worse without a beard. But the question that one must ask, in a predominantly beardless society like our own, is — why? Men with beards in modern England are trying to say something. What? And should we be listen- ing?
The same delegate who had invited our views went on to explain the special quality of bearded people, `. . .we actually go out and do some work'. A beard for many Liberals, is a mark of one's ordinariness and one's diligence. Just as a labourer has calloused hands, and a soldier has his scars, a Liberal activist has a beard (a full beard, by the way, not neatly clipped, and preferably a red one). Others may rise to fame above him, may make themselves rich and generally tread the paths of glory, but the activist will keep his beard, and nothing can take it away from him.
It is not the least of Mr David Steel's of- fences in the eyes of the bearded that he is aggressively clean shaven. there is not even the merest whisp of goatee on his now slightly fuller chin. It is proof, if proof were needed, that he is an ambitious egoist who does not care about 'community politics'. No doubt he has observed that no party leader since the war has worn a beard (the moustache, of course, is quite another thing. Harold Wilson wore one once so it must at that time have been a badge of power), and has drawn the appropriate con- clusions. It would have been much easier for dark-haired men like himself and Jeremy Thorpe to have grown a beard but the twice daily shave is one of the many sacrifices both men were prepared to make to offer themselves as leadership material.
This week, as in almost all previous Liberal Assemblies, the clean shaven seem to have come out on top. That is as one would expect, since that is what they are dedicated to doing, whereas the bearded are devotees of the religion of failure. But it is still remarkable that a party which hopes to form the preponderant party in the next government, and has a very good chance of becoming the official Opposition, should contain a third of its delegates so oblivious to the example of Labour and so filled with self-importance that they wanted to deprive their leader of his veto over the manifesto
which he has to present. One can see why the Social Democrats resist joint selection with such a party. Not only would they suf- fer numerically against the well-entrenched constituency activists; they would be iden- tified with people who resent political suc- cess. It is not a coincidence that the majori- ty of the beards come from the north of England. The chippy northerner loves his region not in spite of its manifest inferiority to the south but because of it.
To the extent that the bearded attitudes result from psychological defects there is not much that the Liberal leadership can do about them. But when it comes to political arguments, it has only itself to blame for allowing space to the doctines of communi- ty politics. The Assembly is organised in such a way that every advantage is on the side of the compulsive talker. This year, fr- inge meetings began on Sunday, policy commissions began on Monday, the Assembly formally opened on Tuesday and does not end until Saturday. The Agenda also details the fringe meetings which are so numerous that they come in waves — those starting at 6.30, those at 8 and those at 9.30. In other words the enterprise lasts an entire week of 14-hour days, almost twice as long as the other parties. Since the Assembly is in the serious position of making all policy and yet having no say over whether or not the parliamentary party adopts it, it feels free, indeed duty bound, to express its view on any subject imaginable, unconstrained by political objections or by practical drawbacks. Since it will probably be four years before any election sharpens their wits, there is no sense of urgency. It re- quires an unusual sort of character to enjoy such an event; but for the men with beards it is a glorified version of what they love do- ing all year round. Add the fact that there are too many current affairs television crews searching the bars for rebellions and splits to justify their expenses, and it becomes inevitable that the whole occasion is intensely bearded.
The argument of the political cynic is that it is good party management for the eccen- trics and the extremists to be allowed to let off steam. He says that as long as Mr Michael Meadowcroft, the spiritually, if not actually, bearded Member for Leeds West, is permitted to speak at three fringe meetings and write four articles every day, he poses no threat. In fact, however, as chatterboxes themselves realise, what is said on such occasions and reported on televi- sion goes a long way to forming the public view of a party. Half the speakers at this Assembly mention that they were first in-
spired to join the Liberals by hearing Jr) Grimond in the 1950s and 60s. In twenty years, members of the new generation may be explaining how Michael Meadowcroft reached their young hearts. The Liberals are not heeding the warning from across the road to the left, where Labours Meadowcroft, Michael Meacher, now has a good chance of the deputy leadership. Besides, the importance of the bearded comes only from the extent to which they are given the platform. They are seldom people of standing in the communities they talk so much about. The Young Liberals who became famous in the late Sixties were, people who represented no-one and would have made their mark in no other walk of life. Where are they now? Either doing the same thing in the Labour Party, working for the Libyan Government or still he with less hair on the tops of their heads moving resolutions back and circulating bulletins and inventing committees. The fact that their activities are pointless may lead people to conclude that they are harmless. It may even be said that there is something healthy about a society where free speech is so readily available to s° many who might otherwise have nothing to do. But surely the most likely effect of the deluge of waffle that now comes out of political conferences is to bring free speech into disrepute. However unintereStingit may be to hear Mr Steel or Dr Owen or NI!, Kinnock advance views on the questions °I the hour, one can recognise that there is some point in their doing so, because the, are attempting to offer themselves as serious candidates for forming a govern- ment. But when we see Young Liberals, shouting about plastic bullets, or Liheralf councillors arguing about the structures ° party policy making, it is difficult for us to avoid concluding that democratic politics is a very tedious game which non-players.cl° best to by-pass. A single leader with a sli° ple message then becomes dangerously at. tractive. The men with beards have even been able to put about the idea that they are more tru, ly representative of the people because the,)' are 'on the ground' and 'at the grass roots_.: The idea of community politics is that peso ple become political by taking Power In their own lives. This means, for instance; that you have a system of local governin in which your street sub-group pressure on your tenants' group to P ,.o'r pressure on your councillor to get Y'°. „d garden gate mended. You or I might ',I"to that we could more easily take power °I our own lives by paying for our gate to be mended after comparing various tenders, or mending it ourselves. Mr Steel would Pr u.0 bably agree with us; but he is forced the temper his opinions with a deference to tuw notion of party 'democracy' which has °too found a foothold in every party except the Conservative. This week he has singe" beards; but unfortunately he is not stroll! enough to copy Peter the Great and chop them all off.
Previous page
