Another voice
Marching orders
Auberon Waugh
At last, it seems the Government is going to grasp the nettle of electoral reform. Many People may not be aware that this historic development is imminent, unless they happened to spot a report in Saturday's Times Which trailed a Green Paper to be published 'soon' as the result of 'about two years of discussions at the Home Office.' This Green Paper, initiated chiefly by Mr Leon Brittan, one of the Conservative Party's Bright Young Things from Cambridge University is hailed as 'the first big review of electoral law since the Representation of the People Act, 1949.' Uneasq lies the • head that wears the crown, and one must not suppose that all those striped bottoms on the Treasury Bench sit any easier. There is always the Possibility, however remote, that they will be thrown off at the next general election. It is at such desolate moments as these that thoughts turn to electoral reform. The main and over-riding purpose of any electoral reform introduced by a Conservative government must be to ensure, so far as is possible, that a Conservative government is returned at the next and all subsequent elections, that government remains in the hands of, well, people like us. The secondary, or patriotic intention is to ensure that the country never suffers the unimaginable horrors of a Gadaffi-style Bennist government, where innocent workers who wish to buy their own council houses will not only have postal services withdrawn and be prevented from working but in extreme cases where house purchase has been effected will actually have their hands cut off to prevent them working ever again. . . The first part of this article will be addressed to Conservative supporters, asking to what extent Mr Brittan's proposals on electoral reform guarantee their future peace of mind. The first doubt, when considering the fruits of these two-year discussions Which Mr Brittan held before his promotion to the even more exhilarating heights of the Cabinet as Chief Secretary of the Treasury, must be whether Mr Brittan is quite what we mean when we talk of people like us. I apologise for this digression, but it seems central to the predicament of Conservative supporters in these difficult times. Although Mr Leon Brittan is the halfbrother of the great and good Sam Brittan, and although he is nearly an exact contemporary of mine, I do not think I have ever met him. We were not at school together — he went to Haberdasher's Aske's — nor did we meet in the army — he is rather reticent about his military service in Who's Who — and, of course, he went to Cambridge. But I saw him once on television, debating some idiotic motion at the Oxford Union, and this one sighting confirmed everything that I had previously observed about my contem poraries — that with very few exceptions the brightest and the best had gone into journalism, the second best into banking, the third into the Foreign Office, the fourth into law, medicine, accountancy and the Civil Service, the fifth (pretty good rubbish) into industry and the utter dregs, the physical and emotional cripples whose appalling combination of ugliness, stupid ity, self-importance and general odiousness made them social and moral lepers, all went into politics. If, as I believe, it is a significant political truth that the Conservative party in particular attracts only the most unattractive people in the country then Mr Brittan may go far, since no leader will wish to promote anyone more attractive than he or she may be. The worst political blunder Lord Soames could perpetrate would be to go to a health farm, Mr Heseltine to have a hair cut.
But it is this troupe of freaks and misfits which Mr Brittan's proposals for electoral reform must somehow preserve. There can be no doubt that Britain is a predominantly conservative nation, so all that is required is to devise an electoral system which allows this preference to express itself, undistorted by class rancour and unappalled by the physical or social characteristics of those who wish to lead us. In the present climate, even those simple measures necessary to restore industrial competitiveness — curbing the power of the unions and discouraging strikes — are labelled 'extremist' and too dangerous for an unpopular Conservative government to contemplate. Something must be changed, but the only way for a Conservative government to survive indefinitely — and the only way for Conservative bottoms to stay on the Treasury bench — under present circumstances must surely be through a Conservative-dominated coalition. Do Mr Brittan's proposals for electoral reform advance this purpose?
Well, not entirely. After two years of discussions in the Home Office, the first big review of electoral law since 1949 advances only two suggestions for allowing the wishes of the electorate to be better represented in Parliament. The first is to raise the deposit for parliamentary candidates from £150 to £.1000, the second to enable citizens abroad to vote.
Now the second might, I suppose, deliver some small advantage to the Conservative Party, but the only people to suffer from the first (since it is also proposed to reduce votes needed from 121/2 per cent to 5 per cent) will be the Wessex Nationalist Party, the White Monarchist and Motorway Safety Party, the National Dog-Lovers Party and its various splinter-groups.
Which is all very well, but do these proposals really go far enough? Proportional representation is a hideously boring subject, chiefly because neither of the main parties has the slightest intention of introducing it, but partly also because Conservatives have allowed themselves to be persuaded that it will produce a permanent Butskellism or Liblabbery. I think they are wrong, and that a more representative Parliament would bring with it a significant and permanent shift to the right in British politics. But since the Conservative leaders are too stupid, too cowardly or too vain to grasp the nettle, and since Conservative supporters are too deferential to demand it, I shall not waste more time addressing them. The rest of the article is addressed to the military although I do not propose to confuse them with all the implausible and nauseating details of proportional representation. Once again, a government Green Paper must be seen as demanding military intervention. So here goes.
Circulation. Men and women of the Armed Forces.
Note on technical terms. Proportional Representation: it has been decided that the II.R. Droop System of the Single Transferable Vote is the best available, and it is this one which will apply as and where designated by the initials PR.
Situation. Representative democracy has broken down in the United Kingdom. Government is threatened by a takeover of political extremists with support from sexual perverts and other elements, including some friendly to Redland.
Aim. Our purpose is to restore representative democracy in the United Kingdom by means of proportional representation (PR).
Method. Phase A. Units will ocupy the Palace of Westminster and Numbers Ten and Eleven Downing Street removing all occupants in charabancs to a secret destination where they will be held until the successful completion of Phase 'C'. Bully beef rations and reconstituted potato rations will be served throughout the period, with tea.
Phase B. An '0' Group will be held in Committee Room 14 on successful completion of Phase 'A'. Tea will be served.
Phase C. It will be announced that these internees will be held incommunicado until the Queen has dissolved Parliament and called a general election using the aforesaid PR system. No further laws will be passed and parliament will cease to function until the newly-elected parliament is returned.
Phase D. On dissolution of parliament, internees will be released to campaign for election under the new system, but units will remain in occupation of the Houses of Parliament and other administrative cen tres until the new parliament is opened after the general election. All units will then return to barracks.
Previous page
