POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Problems of a Young Conservative
AUBERON WAUGH
It is unfortunate, in a way, for the Tories that Ulster should have blown up again at a moment when they are still (holidays per- mitting) seething with righteous constitu- tional indignation over Mr Callaghan's gerrymander Bill. Unionist gerrymandering in Ulster was produced again and again dur- ing the gerrymander debate in support of the doubtful proposition that two wrongs make a right, but nevertheless there was a discernible reluctance, on the Government's part, to become involved in Ulster up to the moment of the summer recess. Mr Wilson might at one stage have been tempted by the idea of a short, sharp police action to impose direct rule from Westminster, but Mr Callaghan appeared to have renewed with Major Chichester-Clark the under- standing reached between Mr Wilson and Captain O'Neill, namely that the British government's reserve powers would only come under consideration in the event of troops being needed.
In party political terms, any dramatic development in Ulster could only tarnish the snow-white garments which the Tories had donned, quite properly, in discussing Mr Callaghan's gerrymander. Ulster has long been a stumbling block for those whose inclinations might lead them towards the Conservative party, but who like to believe that political commitment should involve an element of idealism (other than the idealism of Mr Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church, of course). Even this might not worry the Conservatives so much—they have managed to stagger along without it up to now—if it were not for the prospect of six million new voters at the next election. Teenagers and younger voters in general are thought rightly or wrongly—to be more interested in idealism than their elders, or at any rate to expect greater lip-service in its direction.
At the time of Captain O'Neill's resigna- tion, the Greater London Young Conserva- tives managed to persuade their Area Fin- ance and General Purposes Committee to pass a stiffly worded resolution, calling upon Mr Heath to dissociate himself from any successor to the Prime Ministership of Northern Ireland who neglected to pursue the Captain's enlightened policies. This stu- pendous victory for the forces of enlighten- ment, progress and Young Conservatism can only be explained when one remembers that Captain O'Neill, at that time, had assumed the mantle of Pope John in Tory minds. But it is what happened to that brave resolu- tion after it had been wrapped in brown paper and sent off to Mr Heath with bated breath by the Finance and General Pur- poses Committee of the Greater London Area, which provides the rub of the story. Mr Heath sent them a copy of a speech he had made on the subject of Ulster. This was his position on the matter. Roma locuta est.
Now, quite honestly, it is hard to see what else he could have done. Exactly the same thing happened when the Executive Committee of the Greater London Young Conservatives passed a resolution deploring official Opposition support for the Federal Nigerians, and demanding recognition of Biafra. They sent it off to Sir Alec Douglas- Home, who replied with a copy of his last speech on the subject, saying that he was
prepared to go no further at that moment. Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat. And yet what else could the wretched fellow have done, apart from say- ing that a motion of the Executive Com- mittee of the Greater London Area's Young Conservatives had suddenly opened his eyes to the fact that he had made a most ghastly mistake?
Instead, both he and Mr Heath rely upon the Young Conservatives to accept their judgment. If they refuse to do so, that is sad, although the Conservative party is tolerant enough to accommodate differences of opinion; but the official line has been announced, and that is that. There is no suggestion that the Shadow Cabinet could ever be in error — or that, if it were, the error might usefully be exposed from out- side whatever smoke-filled room the Shadow Cabinet uses to reach its decision. And while that system prevails, it is hard to see what incentive there is for anyone who is interested in politics to become a Young Conservative, unless they have an easily identifiable class interest or unless they are prepared to concur automatically in what- ever decisions are made by their elders and betters.
The lack of any tradition in the Con- servative party for open debate probably derives from the days when it was assumed that grass-roots motivation among Con- servative activists was liable, on exposure, to prove, if not disreputable, at least electorally unviable. It might be over-charitable to claim that all this has changed, that the shopkeepers, business consultants and re- tired majors who keep the party going at local level are now inspired by selfless idealism alone; but at least the Young Con- servatives like to feel that this is the case where they are concerned. They even talk about a lack of leadership — something which might well give Mr Heath a fright, since he has been obsessed by the cult of strong leadership ever since Sir Alec was deposed for (allegedly) lacking this quality. In fact, there is no anti-Heath movement among young Conservatives, nor any grave dissent from the innumerable policy decisions he has made. What they mean is that there is no effective or sustained effort on the part of the Tory leadership (Mr Macleod is, perhaps, an exception) to em- brace and inspire them. And Mr Heath's constitutional innovation of a Shadow Cabinet with collective responsibility for decisions might almost have been calculated to stifle debate and to estrange them still further.
I have deliberately kept my discussion of the frustrations of Young Conservatives general. The more specific ones are easily answered, and can even be shown to have no rational base: for instance, their demand that the party chairman should be elected rather than appointed, the better to repre- sent grass-roots opinion, can be answered by pointing to the terrible example of the chairman of the Labour party. Who is he? Does anyone know? The chairman of the National Union Executive Committee is already elected, for all the good it does anyone. The demand that Young Conserva- tive resolution should carry weight is easily met by the answer that youth does not
necessarily involve greater wisdom, a bal- ance must be struck, life doesn't end at thitry, etc.,- etc. In fact, if- you press the two buttons marked 'participation' and `youth' at Central Office, you will be shown a fully documented account of how the YCS participate very fully indeed. vc re- presentation on the National Executive has increased, until they now have twenty-ffie out of one hundred and eighty members . . . actual representation at meetings is higher than this . . . although admittedly YCS find the weekend more convenient for meetings than mid-week, a majority of members prefer mid-week . . . vcs account for nearly a third of those attending the annual party Conference . . . there is one YC included by statute on the party's Advis- ory Committee on Policy . . . they can always send in resolutions to the annual Conference, which may be balloted for, if not actually chosen ... in a mass party, one can only debate matters of majority inter- est, of course, but all in all, the YCS get a very fair crack of the whip. . . .
But, alas, the malaise runs rather deeper than that. The Young Conservatives re- quire more than a formal recognition of their own importance. They are discouraged by the whole nature of the Conservative party, its almost pathological respect for authority, its unity-fixation, its mistrust of youth, mistrust of debate, mistrust of ideal- ism outside the familiar noises of patriotism cloaking a more or less surreptitious nostalgia. The short answer to revolting Young Conservatives, of course, is that if they don't like the party as they find it they should attach themselveS to some other organisation—the wild Young Liberals or even (excuse me while I laugh) the Young Socialists. Let the decent, shiny-faced and diffident young, or the ambitious and tact- ful, remain within the fold, and if they work hard enough canvassing the young voters and making the right noises when the Big Breadwinner visits them with a stirring oration about his own self-sacrifice and high level of education, then eventually, at the sensible age of forty-five, they may be received into the club.
The argument is impeccable, of course, The only trouble is that it won't work. The immediate question may concern only the six million new voters, and surveys indicate that there will be few surprises in store when they vote. The longer term question concerns the survival of the Conservative party as a dynamic force, able not only to attract votes as the lesser evil than a Labour government but able also to attract the loyalty and affection of a new generation. To a greater or lesser extent, of course, the same problem confronts the other two par- ties. Young Socialists are in a more or less permanent state of excommunication, and Young Liberals have fewer and fewer ties with the party whose name they have chosen to adopt. One may argue about which generation is to blame, but the result is in- disputable.
It was Mr Crossman, I think, who re- marked that politics were moving from an oligarchy based upon wealth to an oligarchy based upon enthusiasm. The danger which the Conservative party faces. if it upholds its anti-Stalinist framework and its insistence upon unity as the greatest characteristic of the one true faith, is that it will no longer be able to attract the en- thusiasts. As a Young Conservative vice- chairman put it, in some dismay: 'If they are like this in opposition, heaven help us us all when they are back in power.'
Previous page
