SPECIATOR
The Spectator, 56 Doughty Street, London WC1N 2LL Telephone: 0171-405 1706; Fax 0171-242 0603
REPUBLICAN FAILURE
Carlton's much-publicised television debate on the monarchy was expected to rout the monarchists — that is, intellectual- ly. Of course the public were likely to cast their telephone votes in favour of the monarchy, but this would not detract from the stature of republicans such as Mr John Pilger, it would probably enhance it.
Newspapers, including the Daily Tele- graph, suggested that the monarchists appearing on the programme were right- wing twits. What, for instance, could Mr Bill Wyman, the former Rolling Stone, con- tribute to an authoritative debate? Even Mr Frederick Forsyth, the novelist, was unlikely to rebut such heavyweights as Pro- fessor Stephen Haseler.
In the event the contrary proved true. It was the republicans who lost the argument; something that was evident long before 2.5 million viewers telephoned the programme to vote for the continuance of monarchy. Mr Wyman, it turned out, was not on the panel at all, nor even in the audience, but merely appeared in a television `soundbite' recorded some days before.
But why were the republicans so soundly vanquished? We would do well to remem- ber that most republics have not come about through the triumph of republican sentiment but through defeat in war. Such was the case with Germany, Austria, Hun- gary and Russia. One of the reasons for this is that, contrary to modish opinion, the republican argument is rarely a rational one.
Most of the sentiment is a personal cry against a system that the republican feels has let him or her down. This is why so many republicans are failed politicians. Pro- fessor Haseler, for instance, stood unsuc- cessfully as a Labour candidate in 1970. Thus the republican frequently has other schemes, such as abolition of the Lords and a hatred for Conservative governments. It is harder to find republicans among successful people. It would be difficult to think of a leading free-markeeter or public figure who wished to abolish the monarchy. Throughout modern times, monarchists have been more distinguished than republi- cans — Bolingbroke, Edmund Burke, Dr Johnson, Disraeli, Churchill. The most glo- rious name the republican side can muster is Charles Dilke. Clever republicans are aware of their precarious position, so they continually seek support from minorities. This is partic- ularly true of blacks, who are told that their colour must make them revolutionaries. Nothing angers republicans more than a black refusing this demeaning role — as the Olympic medalist Miss Tessa Sanderson did on Carlton's debate. Republicanism, if not the last refuge of the scoundrel, is often the last refuge of the failure.
The first week of the New Year has fur- ther clarified what New Labour stands for: not giving money to beggars, and being sup- ported by Max Clifford. Concerning beggars, Mr Blair's tactic, on these occasions, seems to be to seek the favour of the middle classes by saying something right-wing in a left-wing setting. He is tough on the Left at Labour Party conferences, and tough on beggars in the Big Issue, the beggars' trade journal. Thus, he perhaps seeks to acquire a reputation for 'courage'. Little courage is needed, however, to say such things in such places, since he is simply using them as platforms from which to win favour with a much larg- er audience. There are very few Labour left- wingers, relatively few beggars, but millions of middle-class voters. The coura- geous thing would be to upset them. If Mr Blair wanted to be courageous, he would, for example, proclaim his support for his party's 'windfall' tax to a gathering of the CBI. Whatever reasons voters may have for making Mr Blair prime minister, his courage is not one. Being hard on beggars can be safely made public. Being soft on Mr Clifford is something which has to be done more sur- reptitiously. Mr Clifford is described as 'a publicist'. He is really a species of informer. He informs to tyranny on his fellow citi- zens, trafficking in their frailties and follies. All tyrannies have relied on informers. The nearest things that Britain has to a tyranny are the down-market tabloids. In exchange for money — as informers have always done — Mr Clifford informs to them.
What then is New Labour's attitude to this man? First, Mr John Prescott made use of what he, Mr Clifford, did to Mr Hayes.
Mr Prescott made the usual point about such things discrediting Mr Major's 'family values'. But when the Daily Telegraph's columnist Janet Daley described seeing Mr Clifford and Mr Peter Mandelson hobnob- bing at a Christmas drinks party, Mr Man- delson wrote a letter for publication deny- ing any recollection of the occasion. He did not 'endorse or support Mr Clifford's actions as a publicist', he added, which is a long way short of condemnation and dis- avowal. New Labour, then, as exemplified by the remarks of Mr Prescott and Mr Man- delson, wants Mr Clifford's information, but not his person. Enemies of tyranny, inform- ers and opportunism must cling to the out- side hope that, come the election, New Labour will profit from neither of them.
Previous page
