POLITICAL COMMENTARY
The torture of the three-way split
AUBERON WAUGH
Still reeling with astonishment at their own bravery in defeating the Government's Rhodesia Order in the Lords, the Tories are now squaring up to a major internal row when the Race Relations Bill comes back for its Report Stage and Third Reading. This will probably be within a fortnight, and nobody yet has any idea how the Conservative party will vote. The official reason for this is that the opposition must wait to sce what concessions, if any, are included in the Government amend- ments at this stage. Ho‘v es er. as they will only be published two days before the debate, nobody is waiting for that, and there are in- tense behind-the-scenes dramas being enacted with threats, entreaties.. consciences and loyalties being tossed around- like so many pieces of fox after a good days hunting.
One might suppose that Mr Callaghan has no incentive to make any concessions. After all. this Bill marks his great opportunity to emerge as a progressive Home Secretary and is also an extremely cheap way for the Government to appease its Hampstead followers. If the Tories are forced into opposing the Bill, as they did the original Bill on the second reading. they will incur the renewed odium of all newspaper and television journalists. N1/4 hile the spectacle of a handful on the left of the party defying the Whip might contribute toss ards the general pic- ture of Tory disunity.
On the other hand. this analysis ignores the certain effect on Tory party morale of not opposing the Bill. Race relations do not excite quite the same degree of emotion in the con- stituencies as immigration. but there arc many worthy chairmen and local activists who do not see much distinction between the two, regarding both as part of a left wine plot to subvert our national morality, violate our womanhood and undermine our resist:ince to the eventual com- munist takeover.
If the Government really wants to cause trouble for the Tory party, it should include some mammoth concessions allowing insurance agreements to be racially loaded and eliminat- ing all reference in the Bill to damages. While this might affront Labour's Hampstead element a little, it would certainly not do the party much harm among its traditional supporters in the country. who are in the worst array. And if the parliamentary Conservative party felt bound to abstain as a result, large sections of the National Union of Conservative Associa- tions would be drawn towards Mr Powell— even more than they are already. Moreover, whatever concessions Mr Callaghan is prepared to make, and whatever Mr Heath decides to do, up to sixty right-wine Tories will vote against the Bill.
In any case, the choice before Mr Heath is quite simply to oppose or not to oppose. Nobody seriously suggests that he could per- suade the Tories to support the Bill, but there are various degrees of opposition and ac- quiescence open to him. He can put on a three- line Whip which will have the effect of maxi- mising the left-wing revolt. Even on the second reading. there was only a two-line Whip and it seems extremely unlikely that he will choose anything stronger on this occasion. .A two-line Whip enables Nos to pair, so that it is not always easy to discover who is abstaining on principle, who is paired on principle, and who is merely paired to attend an important fact- finding dinner engagement with friends at the other end of London. A one-line Whip has very little–potency, although it might para- doxically mean that fewer left-wing rebels actually vote for the Government (the number is unlikely to be more than five in any case) than would do so on a two- or three-liner. Equally, it might mean that more would abstain.
In the event of acquiescence. Mr Heath can either decide not to oppose the Bill, or he can declare a free vote. The first would mean that a division was forced by his right wing, led by someone like Mr Ronald Bell in defiance of the Whips' wishes. This would probably carry some sixty Tories into the 'No' lobby and also—at any rate on this week's showing --a further. twenty Tories into the 'Aye' lobby in defiance of both Mr Ronald Bell and the Whips. In other words, we would have the dreaded three-way split. Mr Heath, who cut his magnificent parlia- mentary teeth as Tory Chief Whip and has been polishing them ever since, tends to regard the three-way split as the worst form of torture known to man.
It is possible, of course. that Mr Whitelaw will be able to talk round a few of the left wingers. The Tories' affable Chief Whip will wait on them most punctually and be extremely forthcoming in his conversation. The greatest danger confronting the Conservative party, he will -say. is Powellism. Unless the left is pre- pared to rally round Mr Heath, and even to allow him a few positives which are, further to the right than his own gentle nature would pre- fer. then the member for Wolverhampton South West will go galloping through the land like the Beast from the Apocalypse and no baby will be safe in its cot ever again. This line of argument worked with a few people on the last occasion. Mr John Nott loyally abstained from abstaining at the Second Reading because he felt that Mr Heath needed a little encourage- ment after his action in sacking Mr Powell. On the other hand. Mr Peter Tapsell and some others probably felt it doubly necessary to abstain in order to dissociate themselves from Powellism.
The right wing tends to be less complicated in its approach. Some may feel a need to cut the Gordian Nott. or. as someone wittily remarked, to put a washer in the dripping Tap- sell; but basically they don't like Race, they don't like Relations and they don't like Bills. They will be totally unimpressed by any con- cessions made, and totally unmoved by any hostile comment in the communist-infiltrated organs of opinion. Mr Whitelaw can pirouette and wink but nothing alters the fact that Bills are things to be voted against when one is in opposition, and regarded with deep suspicion when one is in power.
In the Shadow Cabinet, counsels are divided. The normal 'progressive' alignment of Mr Macleod, Sir Edward Boyle and Mr Robert Carr has been joined most forcefully on this occasion by Mr Anthony Barber, the party chairman, who feels that since no Conservative government would ever repeal the Bill once it is enacted, they might as well accept it with a good grace. But much will depend on which way Mr Hogg finally decides to jump. At present, he seems unable to make up his mind whether such concessions as he has been able to wring out of the Government in commit- tee—on damages for insult, on powers of subpoena and, on private house sales — are significant or not. If they are significant, of course, they are a tribute to his negotiating skill. If they are not significant, they are a sign that the Government is determined to push through a Thoroughly Bad Bill. Like every- one else involved, he does not have to make up his mind until he sees the Government's amend- ments in the report stage, but those who are already sitting on one side or another of the fence may become a little impatient with the Humpty Dumpty figure above them.
There will be nothing inconsistent in the opposition's behaviour if it decides to let the Bill's third reading through unopposed. The second reading was countered by a reasoned amendment which accepted the idea of legislation as something useful and progressive while deciding that the proposed Bill was a bad one on balance. There is nothing easier than to swing a balance, and the fact remains that all concessions so far have been made to the Tories, none to those Labour supporters who wanted to make the Bill stronger. But in- consistency is the last thing that anyone worries about. The charge that will be levelled against Mr Heath, whichever way he jumps, will be one of weak leadership. If he decides to oppose the Bill, he will be accused of deferring to Mr Powell and the right wing rump; if he decides not to oppose, constituency associations up and down the country will decide that he has shown no leadership whatever.
• In this context, it is relevant to note how one's judgment of another person's strength of leadership is influenced by the extent to which one agrees with what he decides. I asked a Tory left-winger whether Mr Heath would be showing strong leadership if he allowed the Race Relations Bill to be settled by a free vote, and the answer came back that he would be showing very strong leadership indeed— courageous and far sighted. Now this was ex- tremely interesting, because it exactly con- tradicts Mr Heath's own feeling on the subject. Of course, to someone who still thinks as a Chief Whip, the idea of a free vote has just as much attraction as Christian Science to a surgeon or vegetarianism to a butcher. And Mr Heath could reasonably point out that there are many who would agree with him on this occasion.
So the only way he could please everyone would be by declaring a free vote and then voting himself against the Bill—whatever he may happen to feel about its final appearance. As this is probably the least likely of all solu- tions to be adopted, it would be a waste of time to point out that its basic flaw lies in trying to please everybody. The divisions between left and right in the Conservative party are deep and permanent. So long as a free vote is regarded as the very negation of leadership we shall be left with a succession of patched-up and increasingly implausible compromises. After the sacking of Mr Powell, which brought the party's divisions into the open, a loose-rein policy is more essential than ever. Nobody will pay much attention to three-way splits if it is known that a loose-rein policy is in opera- tion. If nothing else carries any weight, Mr Heath should at least consider his own position: the more rigid the uniformity im- posed, the greater the havoc when it snaps.
Previous page
