FURTHERMORE

Tory MPs have no business being independent-minded

PETRONELLA WYATT

The growing independence of Conserva- tive MPs is one of the greatest threats to democracy. Members of Charter 88 will think that I have this the wrong way around. But I have not. They have it the wrong way around. Let us take the case of Mr Quentin Davies. Mr Davies is the Con- servative MP for Stamford and Spalding. He is also one of the Tories who decided to vote against the Government on Scott.

Who is Mr Davies? He is a former mer- chant banker turned backbencher. In his Who's Who entry he lists under recreations `playing bad tennis'. Little else about him is known except that his quest for office fal- tered a few years ago. One might say that like a number of modern Tories Mr Davies resembles a certain type of fast food cafd: inconsequential and self-serving.

Last week he struck out for his place in the Sun. Mr Davies whipped himself up into a positive lather of independence. He spoke of 'the sickening realisation that I would probably have to vote against the Government'. He referred to an 'electoral dictatorship'. It was the responsibility of Tory MPs 'to question ministerial actions, to confirm — or to decline to confirm their policies'.

What does this mean? This appears to be a view taken by a growing number of Tories. Independence is breaking out all over. There is Mr Richard Shepherd, the other Tory who voted against the Govern- ment. Mr Shepherd's approach to politics is lofty. One feels that he dislikes to see him- self as a mere `party man'. Then there is Mr Peter Thurnham who recently resigned the Tory Whip. Mr Thumham has decided to call himself an independent.

Yes, of course most of this is a euphemism for frustrated ambition, but we must take it seriously nonetheless. As I have said, Mr Shepherd is an honourable man. Why should he not have his own ideas from time to time? Why should not, for that matter, Mr Davies and every other Tory MP? Is this not an historic parliamen- tary tradition?

Or one could say this: who on earth do Mr Davies and Mr Shepherd think they are being 'independent'? John Wilkes? Edmund Burke? Next Mr Shepherd will be telling us that he is not a representative but a delegate. MPs today have no business having their own ideas. What's the idea? It is the duty of an MP in a party political sys- tem to be unswervingly loyal to the political party to which he belongs.

Unromantic and indeed unlikely as this may sound, it is the latter approach which is infinitely more desirable from the point of view of democracy. Independence in an MP is greatly overrated. It is like a member of a pop group deciding to go solo — it sel- dom has beneficial effects. Moreover, inde- pendence has strings which are no less invidious for being less visible to the casual observer.

Let us consider the heyday of the inde- pendent-minded MP. This, according to historians, was in the mid-18th century. In 1754, for example, there were nearly 600 MPs in the Commons. Over 250 thought of themselves as 'independent'. From the back benches they thundered at ministerial corruption. How Mr Davies would have like to have thundered with them!

Sometimes they voted with the ministry, sometimes not. Wilkes, the great radical independent, began by supporting Chatham, attempted to win preferment from one of his opponents, and when that failed, returned to his old patron. Burke composed principles for the Rockingham Whigs but has gone down in history as a Tory.

There was no party system. With the fail- ure of Jacobitism the Tories had ceased to have any cohesion. The Whigs were split into factions. They rarely acted together or acknowledged any one leader. Lord Walde- grave, the ancestor of Mr William Walde- grave, observed that 'they are nothing like a regular and discipline army'. Alleged Tories like Lord North formed coalitions with nominal Whigs such as Charles Fox. Party was considered to be out of keeping with the classic model provided by the Greek city states.

Doubtless Mr Shepherd and Mr Davies would approve of the model provided by the Greek city states. But this sort of politi- cal independence had a chequered history. For a start, the great mass of the people is more easily excluded. The weakness of

`We're almost slippery enough to become M.P.s.'

party meant that the 18th-century MP paid his own election expenses. In the case of many MPs who were the beneficiaries of a family seat, it sustained the political supremacy of the landowning class. Others sought financial patronage from a peer or a powerful minister. This system extended to the Lords. Namier discovered that in the 1750s there were a dozen 'independent' peers who were given 'financial assistance' by the First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Newcastle. They did not turn out to be troublesome critics of the government.

Perhaps we deceive ourselves if we believe there is such a thing as indepen- dence in any case. But better the ties of a party than those of an individual or a small faction of society. Cobbett, who was no fan of parties, observed that they ensured a more democratic system. It was the rise of the party machine in the 19th century that brought the populace into the political pro- cess. In particular, it was the establishment of a central Tory party fund. It is not clear that this existed before 1832. There was, however, an election fund in the campaign of 1835. As a result, by 1874 there were more political candidates than ever before.

Other institutional features such as a centralised bureaucracy (Central Office) and a country-wide mass organisation (the National Union of Conservative and Con- stitutional Associations) were developed by Disraeli as a result of the challenge created by the first major step towards mass democracy, the 1867 Reform Bill. The financial and administrative support of the party was bestowed in return for a new loy- alty. MPs were now expected to be party men. Charles Greville wrote that 'this patronage by party should be the end of the gentleman independent. Only a scoundrel now would be detached.'

Those Tory MPs who think of themselves as individuals would do well to reconsider their position. They have taken the party shilling, ergo they are not entitled to jeopar- dise its position. To do so would be to com- mit a fraud. It was Burke, of course, who told his constituents that he was not a 'rep- resentative' — they threw him out at the next election. In the meantime the Tory party is entitled to ask Mr Davies for its money back. The allowance for an MP in a county seat is £4,642 plus 5.2 pence per elector. Mr Davies has been the member for Stamford since 1987. He owes his con- stituency association a cheque for £376,201.