ANOTHER VOICE
Like the claim to the Earldom of Selkirk, the identity of the Conservative Party is now disputed
CHARLES MOORE
It is still something to be the 10th Earl of Selkirk, I suppose. So the Daily Telegraph reporter must have been right when he described the decision of Lord James Dou- glas-Hamilton to renounce his title as 'an act of political self-sacrifice'. The poor ninth Earl was scarcely cold in his grave before his nephew, the Scottish Office min- ister and MP for Edinburgh West, hurried forward to disclaim.
His self-sacrifice may turn out not to have been as great as it seemed, since it emerges that Lord James's kinsman, Mr Alasdair Douglas-Hamilton, thinks he is the rightful heir, and has learned support for his claim. One cannot help reflecting too that if Lord James loses his slender majority at Edinburgh West next time, Mr Major will surely do the decent thing by him and give him a life peerage; and since Mr Tony Blair has promised to abolish hereditary peerages anyway, Lord James may have been making a canny calculation about how best to end up in the House of Lords.
But, putting these unworthy thoughts to one side — as one should, because Lord James is a notably honourable man — let us attend to his stated reasons for disclaim- ing his title in time to vote to increase the amount of money we pay to the European Community last Monday night: 'I owe it as a duty to my constituents, whom I wish to continue to serve, and as a matter of loyalty to the Prime Minister and to the Conserva- tive Party to support John Major in the vot- ing lobby.'
These words could be taken as the classic Tory text. Duty and loyalty. Duty and loyal- ty mean that you must do what is asked and expected of you without considering whether you think it is nonsense (which would be intellectual arrogance) or whether your private interests will suffer in consequence (by not becoming the 10th Earl of Selkirk). Yours not to reason why, yours to make a futile gesture, ensuring, by your action, that the Government's majori- ty is 27 rather than 26, and that Selkirk will never know you as its Earl.
This is very admirable, there is no doubt. All governments, perhaps all organisations, depend upon people like Lord James. Even businesses, but more particularly institu- tions whose aims are less simple than profit — regiments, clubs, schools, families, churches — need a habit of obedience and a readiness to act for the institution in apparent defiance of common sense and personal gain. And the Conservative Party has wisely elevated this selfless way of behaving into a creed. This has long been taken as the proof of the Tories' deep seri- ousness about power. If Lord James had said: 'I say, it's all very well about sticking up for the Government and so forth, but frankly this Euro-thingy is a complete hor- licks and anyway I'm quite pipped to be Earl of Selkirk, so I'm off,' then we would have known, indeed, that Mr Major's days, and those of his party, were numbered.
But what of those who thought the oppo- site? What of Mr Richard Shephard and Mr Christopher Gill and Mr Nicholas Bud- gen and the four others who rebelled on Monday and lost the Tory whip? (I exempt, by the way, the eighth rebel, Mr Michael Carttiss, who exhibits so much perplexity in deciding which division lobby to go through that I wonder whether we should believe him when he says that his name is spelt like that. ) They speak of loyalty too — of loyal- ty to their beliefs and to their country and, like Lord James, to their constituents. They believe that they are loyal to the Conserva- tive Party, and their quarrel is only with the Government. Are they wrong? They are certainly, in a sense, selfless, since, by their actions, they may cease to be Members of the House of Commons. Who is the more Tory — the rebels, or Lord James?
Perhaps it is a mistake to dispute the precedence between them. Perhaps both are thoroughly Tory. Why are they on opposite sides of the fence, then? Why are men who agree about most things and who respect one another's motives no longer even, technically, in the same party?
One reason is tactical bungling. It is often said that this is a government of whips, led by an ex-whip who has a whip's mind. Yet whips are supposed to under- stand two things, how to manage parlia- mentary business and how to manage opin- ion, and this Government has failed to do either. If it was such a good way of defeat- No — an old English sheep.' mg a backbench revolt for the Prime Minis- ter to declare in the Queen's Speech debate that all votes on the European Communal/ (Finance) Bill would be treated as votes of confidence, why had this technique nevrt been used this century? And since it Was unprecedented, why didn't Mr Douglas Hurd and Mr Kenneth Clarke, who are supposed to have urged the course upon the Prime Minister, dig about a bit in the history which Mr Major himself presum- ably did not know to find out the prob- lems? Where was all that 'feel' for the House of Commons on which Tories pride, themselves, that almost tactile quality OI understanding his party's desires which is supposed to have elevated Mr Major to what is satirically known as the position of supreme power? It seems that the Government's historical memory went back no further than the Maastricht votes in the summer. Ministers remembered that these had been absolutelY bloody, and that they had only won by call - mg a vote of confidence, so they decided to cut out the bloody bit by insisting on the confidence point straight away. Strictly speaking, it worked, but only in the way that it would work if you introduced the death penalty for double parking: would get rid of double parking, but you would create a certain amount of ill-will. But the more important reason for the split is to do with bad faith. When Conser- vative governments say that they want to improve law and order, or reduce taxation., their party generally believes them. TIS does not mean that they succeed in dollig so, but it does mean that their followers give them the benefit of the doubt. Over Europe, this is ceasing to happen. When Conservative governments say that they are against any further transfer of authority to Brussels, large sections of their partY longer believe them. They know that Clarke and Mr Hurd and Mr Heseltine and, now, they are finally convinced, Mr Major, will never do anything serious to impede European integration. They know that these gentlemen, and particular- ly Mr Major, will never admit this, and they therefore become angry. After what hap pened this week, they can only get angri.er' Like the claim to the Earldom of Selkirk, the claim to the Conservative Party is novit being disputed, and one cannot exP'c either side to behave with the self-abnega- tion of Lord James. also
Previous page
