Political commentary

Not so freakish

Colin Welch

was slightly vexed by the Bermondsey

result, partly because I got it wrong, partly because albatrosses do so suit the Labour Party, don't they? I was also mildly surprised by Mrs Thatcher's reaction. Ac- cording to the Daily Telegraph, 'The Prime Minister, who was working in her flat at 10 Downing St when she heard the result shortly after 2 a.m., saw it as a fundamental reverse for the Militant Left of the Labour Party, a development which she regarded as excellent'.

What — working after 2 a.m.? Why? What at? ' You wouldn't find great delegating forty-winks nine-to-five feet-up men like Coolidge, Attlee or Reagan toiling away at 2 a.m.! But there: workaholism seems to suit our Frederica the Great.

And 'excellent' — how could any development be excellent which threatened to knock off his perch her familiar feed- man Michael Foot? Surely she should follow his career with warm maternal in- terest, doing everything possible to build him up, meals on wheels, beef tea, vitamins, whatever fortifies the over- forties, even fluffed replies: 'Really the Right Honourable Gentleman has floored me — I simply don't know how to answer his brilliant question.' Apart perhaps from myself, what better leader of the Opposi- tion could she hope for than this delightful but luckless old codger, whose total ineffec- tiveness is again demonstrated by curses which could not stop Mr Tatchell standing and blessings which could not secure him success?

Those who liked the Bermondsey result are naturally concerned to deny or play down its supposedly freakish aspects. One indeed may be safely discounted — the ex- traordinary profusion of candidates. Some pompously suggest that the deposit be in- creased to discourage the comedians. I have thought it might well be reduced (a cheap season for Cmdr Boaks, to whom good wishes?), as a wealth of names might be ex- pected to confuse those (perhaps mostly on the left) too daft to be sure of getting their cross into the right box. Bermondsey, with only 900 votes for all the oddballs put together, confounds such expectations.

Freakish or not, one notable factor at Bermondsey was the old age and conse- quent infirmities of many of Mr Tatchell's actual or potential supporters. When he went canvassing it took some of them an age to answer his brisk tap, ring or shriek through the letter box. You could hear long debates within about who should go, bed springs creaking, a clatter of dropped

sticks, someone falling over the cat, a walk- ing frame knocked over, a slow, wheezing, shuffling approach to the door. Often no great pleasure was evinced at what was there revealed; hands were cupped to ears in efforts to grasp what was afoot — "Oo? Thatcher? Tatchell? No, we're Labour 'ere.' I thought at the time Mr Tatchell might have trouble getting some of these poor old souls on parade and so I fancy it proved.

But freakish? Labour itself has apparent- ly consulted the magic mirror on the wall, and has fciund itself regarded as 'old, decaying and out-of-touch'. Its appeal seems still largely to the generation of 1945, now 'nearly 49 years older. Even so it has lost more of its old folk than the Tories have and, when it puts up young whip- persnappers like Mr Tatchell, it is liable to lose a whole lot more. Even after redistribu- tion, there are going to be plenty of decay- ing inner city seats, full of old people. And even after Bermondsey there will still be plenty of young militant left-wingers woo- ing and repelling their support. Like willow- herb, militants proliferate in ruins. So Ber- mondsey may not be so freakish after all.

Another 'freakish' factor was the last- minute Liberal surge. The anti-Tatchell vote must have been, so to speak, poised in the air, waiting to know where it could drop with the maximum effect. The Liberals had only to achieve parity with Tatchell to gather in an immense bonus. That won't happen everywhere, not perhaps in Darl- ington, which makes all Mr Steel's bragging about Labour's terminal decline, about the Alliance as the effective opposition and about there being three possible govern- ments on offer rather than two, seem a bit premature. But it will happen here and there, not so much in a general election, to be sure, as in by-elections; but there is a risk of it wherever Labour puts up repulsive left-wingers, whose manners, as Mr Steel points out, are sometimes as offensive as their politics. Again Bermondsey may not be as freakish as it looks.

Another so-called 'freakish' aspect of Bermondsey, much bemoaned by Labour, was the predominance of personality, smears and innuendo over what are called the real issues, jobs, homes, the bomb and so forth. But really if you put up, say, an alcoholic in a dry area, a fanatical tee- totaller in a heavy drinking area, a gay lib- ber in an old-fashioned working-class area full of Catholics, what can you expect?

What Bermondsey proves is that it is not only wrong but silly to regard an MP as a mere agent or delegate charged with cer- tain specific tasks, his private activities and opinions therefore wholly irrelevant. He stands as a whole man, private and public aspects inextricably intertwined. His rela- tionship with the voters was coarsely com- pared by Otto Weininger to that of a pro- stitute with her clients. I would prefer an analogy from lawful marriage; but anywaY the relationship is or should be quite an in- timate and personal one. As Burke made clear, an MP is not doomed on every matter to obey his constituents; but his general character, opinions and actions must com- mand at least enough respect or assent to make him tolerable. Acceptable views on a few narrowly defined issues are just not enough: there are such things as free votes, after all,

Again I can't regard Bermondsey as all that freakish. Exaggerated it may be: by- elections always are. Allowing for that, what does it portend? Bad news for Labour, if stale: that its leftward surge will not win friends and influence people. Good news for the Alliance, which has achieved a second take-off. Rather bad news for Mrs Thatcher: that the next election, whenever is (and I agree, the sooner the better), will be no walkover. And bad news for Mr Foot, which a bad result at Darlington (still possi- ble) would make worse.

Wiseacres who can have no love for Labour sententiously advise him of his duty to resign and express hopes that Messrs Healey and Kinnock will take over. I dare say such events, if they could be brought about without further uproar, would be to Labour's advantage, if not much: Mr Shore thinks they might add ten or eleven seats, where 100 are needed! In what way would any such recovery, great or modest, be to the national advantage?

Mr Kinnock, amusing and articulate as he can be, is disfigured by streaks of left- wing envy and egalitarian spite which should disqualify him from power. Mr Healey is not widely liked or respected; he can be rude and bad-tempered; his opi- nions, as on defence, slide alarmingly in .the service of his own interest rather than the nation's. Some admire him; how can even they guarantee that he would last as long as Mr Foot? Would he not prove just a tem- porary fig-leaf, imperfectly concealing the repulsive parts of what will soon be in effect a Communist party?

Labour is in a mess; should it not stay there until it learns or splits or dwindles or dies? If Mr Foot can assist in the noble cause of keeping it out of power, is it now his duty to do so? He seems to me a most suitable leader anyway, representing all that is best in socialism: a pity it's so little.

According to Mr Flannery, ex-chairm.ao of the Tribune group, 'almost the entire media and every enemy of the party is h°P: ing Mr Foot will resign'. Oh dear me, O. not me, I swear, not this old medium, this enemy of the party! If I could, I wool' clap a preservation order on him.