Political commentary
And by opposing, end them?
Patrick Cosgrave
Opposition, like chastity, may be good for the soul, but few politicians are enamoured of it. Powerlessness corrupts, it has been aptly observed, and absolute powerlessness corrupts absolutely. It is amazing how quickly, after an election defeat, a political party recovers most of its self-confidence: initially there is a feeling of deep depression, and sometimes even a disposition to agree with critics that a period in the wilderness will facilitate re-grouping; but very quickly all and sundry are declaring themselves ready for office again and, for the most part, allowing for human laziness and frustration in the face of the hard road of opposition, they do their best to regain it.
This is not, unfortunately for parliamentarians, the way party workers in the country see it. When in opposition both Labour and the Tories — and especially the latter — face annual and clamant demands from their party conferences for more action in the House of Commons, sterner opposition, implacable determination to bring the government down, rigorous defence of whatever principles and policies happen at that time to be the ones the party is putting forward. And when the newspapers, television and radio report a low turnout in divisions, or an occasion when the government enjoys a majority higher than it is, on paper, entitled to, anger mounts in the constituencies. Moreover, other parties are inclined to tease the main opposition, by accusing them alternatively of irresponsibility or cowardice: the Liberals, at the moment, have developed a particularly strong line in this kind of invective, and have been goading the Conservatives with an apparent lack of resolution in hounding the Government, a lack
of resolution which seems to many people to stand in direct contrast to Mrs Thatcher's promise at Blackpool to hound Mr Wilson and his colleagues until they dropped.
Most of the burden of both the teasing of the enemy and the irritability of opposition voters falls on the shoulders of the Opposition Chief Whip, currently the amiable and debonair Mr Humphrey Atkins. He had an especially tough time recently when, at 2 am in the morning a division was called on the Community Land Bill which the Tories hate so much and which they had vowed to hound. Alas, only fifteen Tories could be found in the chamber and the Government had a field day. However, as one senior Tory backbencher, sympathetic to Mr Atkins in his agony, put it, this was "a straightforward cock-up," a division having been called in haste and without the Whips having received proper notice. It can happen, even in the ranks of the best regulated oppositions.
In fact, periods of out and out opposition, when the Opposition hammers away at everything the government of the day does, are rare. One was between the 1950 and 1951 general elections, another between 1963 and 1964: in both cases the opposition party felt that one more heave would get the government out, and that they stood an excellent chance of winning the subsequent general election. More common, but still not very common, is the sustained guerrilla operation against a particular measure, and particularly against Finance Bills, the object of which is, if not exactly to emasculate a Bill, then at least to vote down some of its provisions in circumstances where the government will be unwilling to give time for their restoration, since this would wreck its general timetable, Mrs Thatcher's fight earlier this year against Mr Healey's Finance Bill was one such effort, but the modern classic example of such an operation was the battle waged by Mr Edward Heath against Mr James Callaghan's 1965 budget. Every possible trick — rhetorical, procedural and plain underhand — was employed to wear the government down, and important concessions were won. In the nature of things, however, such setpiece confrontations are rare: one's own troops cannot stand the pace, for one thing. For another, as Mr Atkins puts it, "Government must go on, however strong the feelings of the Opposition."
There is, further, little purpose in forcing the Government to an election if one is bound to lose it. A Chief Whip and his front bench must therefore work together, endeavouring to excite public opinion in support of one outright attack to be launched on the government. This means, in the current parliament, creating public pressure on the smaller parties to support the Opposition rather than the Goernment One of the greatest difficulties facing Mr Atkins is that, although the Government's paper majority is only one, and although it ought therefore to be highly susceptible to pressure, its working majority is about forty, because of regular absentions in the ranks of the minor parties, or because some of these prefer to support Socialist measures. The Ulster
members, for example and the Scottish Nationalists, are particularly poor attenders, and the Welsh Nationalists usually suPPert Labour. When the Tories set out, for example, to oppose Labour's plans for direct grant schools — a highly popular policy in the country — the crucial vote found seven Ulster Unionists in the Tory lobby, with three abstaining; ten Liberals voting with Labour while three abstained; all eleven Scottish Nationalists abstaining; two Welsh Nationa' lists abstaining while one supported Labour. There were seven Labour abstentions while I. _M Gerry Fitt voted with the Government and Mr M. F. Maguire, the maverick independent member for Fermanagh was, as is usually the case, absent. The Conservatives polled their fUll strength, to no avail.
Apart, however, from these quotidian colt derations which limit the Conservative effnr` there are others. An Opposition front bench must decide what concessions it is prepared te make in the interests of greater governmental and parliamentary efficiency. There must be some such, or the whole structure ceases, t0 function. They may be less or more depending on one's view of the political situation at anY given moment. Mr Atkins, who believes that "representation abroad, by ministers and backbenchers, matters" normally offers Pa1r5 to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and two Northern Ireland ministers. He 1(51 usually willing to pair other ministers, a8,1 members of the European Parliament, as We as members of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO. Moreover' since Select Committees need to travel in the course of their work, he says, "If they think It essential to be out of London I try not t° prevent them except in exceptional circuar stances."
Whether Mr Atkins's belief that the Tories are doing their best is well-founded can be checked by reference to whether his activities trouble his opposite number, Mr Bob Mellish, nt, not, Mr Mellish is, at the moment, convinced that the Conservatives are a formidable opposition, though his own troubles are not as great as Labour faced between 1964 and 1966' One particular problem now faces him. MellyA bership of Commons committees is organise" in proportion to representation in the House 85 a whole. Thus, even if the Scottish Nationalists normally support Labour in divisions WIT, separate identity means that Labour does (1°' gain from their aid when committee appointments are being made. The advantages of eve.° a tiny overall majority in the whole House is,1,1! committees, considerable: even if there is a is the duty of the committee chairman to Oa his vote for the bill as it stands — i.e. as the Government wants it — and the practice of thei Speaker, when the Bill returns to the floor or the House, to call amendments according1V. John Ryman being in trouble at Blyth tr. Mellish's advantage in committees is now serious danger, and Mr Atkins eagerly avvel`; the advantage that will fall to him if Mr Ryina" is unseated. Thus Mr Mellish has entered int° intensive negotiations with Mr Gerry FI hoping to persuade the SDLP member to tal" the Labour Whip formally and restoringt thereby his own narrow edge on the Tories. Mt Fitt has so far resisted these blandishments, 1:81, he is a Socialist, and may succumb. If he cloeP Mr Atkins is back to square one, thus indicating that Lord Randolph Churchil's famous genera lisation about the duty of the Opposition be g0 to oppose is, indeed, only a small part of tit truth.
Previous page
