POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Mr Heath's incomplete striptease
AUBERON WAUGH
Naked cynicism in politics is always refresh- ing, and might even be what passes for in- tellectual honesty in the democratic context. Certainly, it is a welcome antidote to the half-witted optimism of the Wedgbenn-Cas- tle school, or that resolute defiance of the natural order which one saw at Nottingham in Mr Wilson's bland refusal to look the electorate's present mood in the face. If the only alternative to gullibility or self-decep- tion is described as cynicism, then let us all be cynical. That said, one must also admit that cynicism in itself is not enough : to be effective, it must be intelligently related to the truths of the moment. Can one honestly suppose that the Conservative manifesto, as it emerged from the Council of Croydon, fulfils this second condition?
I have avoided discussing the Codex Croydoniensis until now because, like most people, I imagined that we had only seen a quarter of it. Of the five proposals which emerged, only two were in any sense new—octogenarian pensions and the em- phasis on law and order—and these did not seem sufficient to justify the extraordinary ebullience with which Tory leaders stepped out from the Selsdon Park Hotel to their various fact-finding tours of Mexico, Australia and the Middle East. No mention was made of a policy for the environment, or of a Bill of Rights, or even of a Value Added Tax. Plainly, it seemed, there were secret codicils which would be unveiled with tanta- lising deliberation by Mr Heath in the months between now and the general elec- tion—and unveiled with such consummate mastery that when he stood revealed, in all his suntanned naked splendour, we would be struck dumb in a collective ecstacy.
Inquiries since that glorious weekend of Sexagesima Sunday, when Tory faces were in every newspaper and the latest Tory platitude on every lip, suggest that there are indeed codicils to follow, which I shall discuss later in the article, but that these codicils are not judged to be electorally significant. A Bill of Rights was not discussed at all—Breadwinner Hogg was too much excited by his law-and-order proposals to mention it—and the environment's Mr Chataway was not even considered im- portant enough to be invited. Value Added Tax must await Professor Wheatcroft's report for its details, and the Shadow Cabinet felt it should be kept veiled for the moment, in case it gave Mr Wilson some- thing meatier than his memories of the 1930s on which to bite.
In other words, we have seen all the best parts of Mr Heath's political strip-tease. All that remain to be unveiled are his less in- tensively erotic fringe parts—the wrists and ankles, if you like—and a rather nasty wart somewhere on his tummy. The sprightly step and general ebullience of the Shadow Cabinet can only be explained by their con- fidence that the election is won whatever platform they stand on—and that at last they have agreed on a platform.
Which brings us to the details of the Codex. The purpose of emphasising law and order must have been to win votes, or it would have found no place in a political manifesto. Is the issue of law and order really an important one in Britain, as it is in America, where rape, burglary and ag- gravated assault are all part of the exciting scene? Of course, one will get Hogg-like noises from any taxi-driver, gamekeeper or old age pensioner one scratches—and opi- nion polls confirm this—but nobody's life is seriously inconvenienced by revolting students, or burglars, or skinheads—outside the universities, the burglar-belt of Westminster, Chelsea and South Kensington, and a few seaside resorts. It is a sad fact of politics that those who see themselves in- convenienced or slighted by politicians are far angrier than those who see themselves placated are grateful. Many students who have never dreamed of demonstrating against apartheid—the vast potential middle class which Toryism should be seeking to embrace and inspire—may be actively affronted if the Tories exploit popular envy and hatred of students in this way. If the election is a foregone conclusion, it scarcely seems necessary to alienate an entire genera- tion's higher intelligence grouping—most of them potential Conservative supporters.
The only other novelty in the Codex Croydoniensis, as I have said, was the com- mitment to give octogenarian pensioners that proportion of an old age pension which younger pensioners receive by grace and favour of the government and which were not covered by contributions. Needless to say, the Tories did nothing for these people in their thirteen years and most of them have since died. It is also, I would like to suggest, a rather incompetent proposal. Those who might be thought to need the pensions most—the 50 per cent of those eligible who are on supplementary benefit—will not profit in the least. Those whose incomes are above the supplementary benefit level might well vote Tory in any case, and would be benefiting on the unselective non-con- tributory flat-rate principle which the Tories condemn as wasteful under socialism. If there are any octogenarians still alive whose pride takes the particular twist that they are prepared to accept a non-contributory pension from the state but not a sup- plementary benefit, I very much doubt whether there are quite enough to swing the general election. Nobody is going to be much impressed by the Tories' sudden ac- quisition of Soul on this issue after twenty- one years, even if Soul were still a marketable property with the electorate.
The other three proposals, of course, are familiar. Union-clobbering might be a win- ner if the Tories can overcome the credibility gap on this issue. In any case, it will an- tagonise the unions who form Labour's base. Incidentally, a peculiar story is going round in Tory circles that the unions now want to be bashed—like homosexuals on Wimbledon Common, no doubt. Reduction of taxation would be more of a winner if Mr Heath had not committed himself to finding £600 million for the abolition of SET before he starts reducing personal taxation. Mr Jenkins will almost certainly cut further ground from under his feet by reducing the numbers of those paying income tax and, quite possibly, the standard rate, in his Budget. But the Tories will always lead on the immigration issue, whatever Mr Callaghan may do, while Enoch is still in the party.
Unmentioned in the Codex, of course, were the Tories' disastrous and crazy plans East of Suez, their more or less non-existent policy on Rhodesia or their highly unpopular Common Market and agricultural policies. Never mind. As a public relations exercise, it was a reasonable success. Mr Heath has emerged, like Venus from the waves, with most of his warts still decently covered. My main criticism of the whole exercise is that it wasted an opportunity.
Codicils still to come include the Value Added Tax, Sir Alec Douglas-Home's Scot- tish Assembly, details of the abolition of investment grants (although Mr Jenkins may well forestall these), details of the Tory pension scheme, and the quality of the en- vironment.
No Bill of Rights, written constitution or system of administrative law looks like emerging at all. The advantage of a com- plete strip-tease before election is that the Civil Service feels bound to accept any proposals which are included in an election manifesto. But we have not had a complete strip-tease, and the advantages of the utmost reticence are even more striking.
If the Tories were to concentrate on the environment and a Bill of Rights, it could scarcely influence the election much, of course. But the election is a foregone con- clusion. Detailed policies can scarcely contri- bute much to winning it, through Waugh's Law, whereby any proposed change in the status quo must annoy someone; and an- noyed people are more highly activated polit- ically than people who are placated. A Bill of Rights and Code for the Protection of the Environment are exactly the sort of non- issues which annoy no one. Instead, they provide something for people to seize who intend to vote Conservative anyway, in ac- cordance with their self-interest; and something which will give them not only a justification for doing so, but also a con- scientious reason for identifying themselves with the Conservative party.
Mr Hogg may think that he will inherit the Home Office, but I expect he will find himself on the Woolsack. As yet, he has done nothing to eclipse or even approach his father's reputation—nor will he ever, if he goes down in history merely as the man who stopped student demonstrations at cricket matches.
Civilised nations are almost absurdly grateful to those who give them their constitution. One thinks of Solon the Wise and James Madison. If he can forget about his silly cricket matches for the mo- ment and set to work on a British Con- stitution, I will be the first to ask him to dance up St Quintin's Street and down Hog- gadilly with me on Constitution Day.
Previous page
