Why I joined the Tories

Auberon Waugh

Ido not know why David Owen is invariably described as 'Doctor Owen' in the newspapers. So far as I can see, he is not and never has been a Doctor of Medicine or of anything else. He is a Bachelor of Medicine and also of Surgery, both of Which distinctions entitle him to the ancient and honourable title of 'Mister'. However, he plainly enjoys being called 'Doctor' and since one does not wish to hurt his feelings it might be appropriate to award him the ti- tle, just as cooks and house-keepers inYsteriously used to achieve married status on their promotion from the lower reaches of the domestic hierarchy. invariably described as 'Doctor Owen' in the newspapers. So far as I can see, he is not and never has been a Doctor of Medicine or of anything else. He is a Bachelor of Medicine and also of Surgery, both of Which distinctions entitle him to the ancient and honourable title of 'Mister'. However, he plainly enjoys being called 'Doctor' and since one does not wish to hurt his feelings it might be appropriate to award him the ti- tle, just as cooks and house-keepers inYsteriously used to achieve married status on their promotion from the lower reaches of the domestic hierarchy.

Be that as it may, I hope that 'Doctor' Owen's speech to the SDP conference on health policy last Saturday will remove any lingering doubts that the SDP is anything more than another collection of busybodies

anxious to impose their own bossy en- thusiasms on the rest of us. Describing alcohol (with 'tobacco) as 'enormously harmful' and 'a massive, self-imposed financial burden' on the nation, the 'Doc- tor' goes on to say that for the SDP to shrink from tougher curbs would be 'a betrayal of its radicalism'. He suggests that

groan, groan — alcohol should come under the Medicines Act as a pharma- ceutical product and so be controlled by the Health Minister, promising to set up specialist committees — boo, howl — under

the Act to provide 'expert advice' on the health risk.

I do not propose to rehearse all the iamiliar arguments against government no in this field — that we have virtually "° Problem of alcohol abuse in Britain

When compared to other countries; that it cannot be said to be a major factor in our industrial inefficiency when alcohol abuse in Japan is so much graver; that to attack the vast majority of moderate alcohol users Under the pretext of discouraging its abuse is the sort of public hypocrisy which, in a truly democratic society, would put a man In the stocks. My purpose in drawing atten- tion to 'Doctor' Owen's speech is simply to Illustrate the character of this new party

which advertises its 'new approach' to Politics.

In the same week, we read that the League Against Cruel Sports, which gave

190,000 to the Labour Party during the

79 election campaign, is seriously con- sidering switching its support to the Liberal-SDP Alliance (more usually known as sonPAL). Mr Richard Course, the

believing executive director, is quoted as have that many anti-hunting fanatics nave switched to the SDP, and says he will he surprised if the SDP's policy for the next election, when decided, does not include a

commitment to ban hare-coursing and stag- hunting. Plainly he, at least, is in no doubt about the sort of new party which disen- chantment with the other two parties has bred.

Nobody can seriously doubt that there is a need for a new party, preferably many parties. An obvious and necessary response to the Cooperative Wholesale Society's dec- sion to ban hunting on its 38,000 acres without reference to the interests of its farmers or their workers would be to press for a new Statute of Mortmain whereby corporations which bought land and behav- ed in this way could have it removed from them and sold to the tenants. In any case it is a public scandal that a society dedicated to cooperative ownership should behave like a feudal baron in this way. But the farming community is seriously threatened by financial groups — trade union pension funds, unit trusts and insurance companies — which buy huge tracts of agricultural land and run them according to the re- quirements of investment policy and tax law rather than agricultural needs. It was against exactly such abusive landlords as the Cooperative Wholesale Society that the Statute of Mortmain protected English farmers throughout most of our history. If there were a small Farmers, Yeomen and Peasants Party within a Conservative Alliance it could and would agitate for this necessary legislation. The Conservative Party is not up to it because it is too large, too synthetic and too wet. Its incapacity to protect the interests of farmers (not to say its hostility to them) is perfectly illustrated by its choice of Agriculture Minister. Mr Peter Walker is a successful businessman who previous background in insurance, in- vestment and unit trusts makes him precise- ly the sort of figure from whom farmers need protection.

In an Obseiver article entitled 'Why I have joined the SDP' Mr Bryan Magee wrote of 'a widespread feeling that the times call for a new approach in politics a modern-minded, forward-looking, above all classless approach which can credibly be embodied only in a new party'. This new party, he says, will borrow the One Nation concept from the Tories; it will borrow an insistence on personal liberty from the Liberals, a compassion and desire for greater social equality from the moderate Labour tradition and 'radical zeal' from the Labour Left. Its policies will be decided at a later date by democratic debate within the party, but 'the classlessness of the SDP is its most fruitful characteristic'.

This is not the time or place to wheel out my thesis that Conservative aspirations to being the party of One Nation are at the

root of its failure to contain the advance of socialism to the point where our free enter- prise economy is now more or less beyond rescue. Let us examine instead the SDP's aspiration to classlessness, itself plainly the product of a desire to represent itself as a party of the national, as opposed to any sectional, interest. One's first reaction is to ask oneself why on earth they can't recog- nise the obvious fact that they are not a classless party at all, but (with the exception of a little flotsam and jetsam from the Labour Party) an almost exclusively middle-class party. The next question, see- ing that they are nearly all middle-class per- sons looking for a party, is to ask why they cannot agree to be a party of middle-class persons looking for a party, instead of a na- tional, classless party looking for some policies. In other words, what they are looking for is a party to represent their own interests. Then why on earth can't they say so, instead of pretending to be concerned with One Nation, Liberty, Compassion, Social Equality, Radical Zeal and all the rest of the tired rubbish which has been bandied between politicians since time began? What they need is a new middle- class party to represent the sectional interests and enthusiasms of the middle classes with the same uncompromising tough- mindedness that Mr Ray Buckton employs to defend the interests of his train drivers.

Obviously such a party could never claim to represent One Nation, or classlessness, or anything of that sort. It would possibly never command an overall majority in the House of Commons, but it could certainly command a big enough block of votes to make it hard for any other party to govern without its participation. That must be the cornerstone of any New Approach to poli- tics. As a cornerstone, it must be built of the solid material of sectional interest, rather than on any airy-fairy abstractions borrowed from the state rhetoric of the last 25 years.

The reason for the SDP's failure to rise to its historic challenge is probably that its spokesmen are politicians before they are citizens seeking to defend their own in- terests, Nobody is attracted to politics who is not a power maniac, a bossy twerp or a crook — types of person not much in- terested in representing other people's in- terests. Given a choice between the three, I would prefer to deal with crooks. At least one can sometimes do business with them.

None of which really explains how I came to join the Conservative Party. Before Christmas a genial neighbour came round collecting money. I was not quite sure whether it was for Dogs' Homes or Cancer or Lifeboats, but I gave him a termer. Now a card has arrived telling me I am a member of the Conservative Party. Perhapg I have been one for years without knowing. Never mind. I feel sure I have made the right deci- sion. The bogus doctor can moan away in his corner about his plans to discourage me from drinking a glass of wine with my din- ner. I am going to follow my local MP, who is called Mr Edward du Cann.