Political Commentary
A registry office wedding
Ferdinand Mount
'No one of course,' said Mr Tadpole, 'would think of dissolution before the next registration. No, no, this is a very manageable Parliament, depend upon it. We have an important section to work upon — the Sneaks, the men who are afraid of a dissolution. I will be bound we make a good working conservative majority of fiveand-twenty out of the Sneaks.'
We try to make it a rule in this column not to quote Disraeli before Hallowe'en. But only the old hustler could do full justice to the fruitiness of the finaglings, the sheer opulence of the humbug. In many a modest home and newspaper office, Mr Callaghan's ministerial broadcast was received with unrestrained hilarity; the Prime Minister himself appeared to think the joke pretty ripe: no election boom . . . ho ho . no instant solutions. . . chuckle. . . North Sea oil . . . work with the greatest vigour . . . God bless my soul. . . best for Britain . . no election . . . ho, ho, ho . . . see it through together.
It is doubtful how well all this goes down with the voters. The British are still thought to like their statesmen solemn. Certainly the flippancy of Mr Callaghan's volte-face was received with mixed feelings at Transport House where Mr Ron Hayward was struck dumb for a period of upwards of six hours. And the union leaders who had handed over the Trade Union Congress for the purpose of a pre-election Labour Party rally were distinctly miffed, as were all those who had, one way or another, been led to believe, or led themselves to believe that the Prime Minister intended an October election — which he undeniably did until a few days ago, when his private polls finally convinced him that he had no chance of winning.
We political commentators all saw it coming, of course. Remember the little subordinate clause two sentences from the end in my analysis of three months ago — 'provided that he does not stagger on into next spring with the unreliable support of the nationalists'? We were well covered, all right.
Significant, though, is the fact that among those who have genuine claims to have prophesied correctly are two former Tory Prime Ministers — Mr Heath and Mr Macmillan. What misled lesser observers was that they could not believe that Mr Callaghan would behave like a Tory Prime Minister. We expect Labour Prime Ministers to relinquish power more gracefully.
Labour may well succeed, at least as far as carrying on into the spring goes. Mr Callaghan did say: 'If I had to rely on the SNP for support, I would run tomorrow.' But that was an eternity ago — last month, to be exact. And the Scotnats fit neatly into the Sneaks' part. They are scared stiff of an election and want the referendum on the Scottish Assembly held first, because the Labour government will be urging the Scots to vote Yes, whereas a Tory government would be urging them to vote No.
An extra six months of limelight and limousines are not to be sneezed at. If you are going to lose, you might as well lose later rather than sooner. If Mr Callaghan can survive the vote on the Queen's speech in November, he can survive until March at least, which would boost his tenure of office up to the three year mark — a respectably middling sort of innings. Again, not to 'be sneezed at. But if he would have lost in October, what makes him think he'll do any better next year? The rate of inflation may not be much worse but it certainly won't be better. Same with unemployment. Same with the state of the government's wages policy.
The delayers advance only one solid reason for imagining that Labour's chances might be better next spring: the new register of voters which comes into force in February. The delayers are a bunch of Tadpoles; they worship registration. An up-to-date register, we are told, would be worth a dozen seats to the Labour Party and might add as much as 2 per cent to its total votes. According to the Observer, it was this argument which particularly impressed the Prime Minister and Merlyn Rees. The theory is that as the register becomes out-of-date and more and more voters move house, the Tory superiority at organising postal votes for their people comes to count for more. Also, the young voters who will be included in a new register are more likely to vote Labour. On the other hand, even a new register is six months old, since it was compiled in midOctober. And what really matters far more than these small advantages is that a new electoral register makes it easier to vote-. The whole theory of a massive advantage therefore has to rest on the belief that Conservative voters are in general keener to turn out than Labour voters.
This is one of the most powerful myths in politics. And no-one believes in it more devoutly than your average Labour MP — and nothing reveals more devastatingly what he really thinks of his supporters. He sees them as fickle, childish creatures likely to be distracted from voting by the slightest League Cup replay or Kojak repeat. He fears they won't vote if it rains or if it's too hot or if it's too cold or if it's too soon after the holidays or if the nights are drawing in. Conservative voters, on the other hand, are assumed to be persons of unquenchable tenacity. But is it true? There was no fouler byelection night than Glasgow Garscadden last March and few higher Labour turnouts. Moreover, it may be news to the politicians, but the academics and now the pollsters have virtually abandoned the ancient thesis of 'differential turn-out'. Professor Richard Rose of Strathclyde points out that Labour has done better in elections since 1964 when turn-out has been falling than in the high turn-out elections of the Fifties. Research now suggests that it is the Conservatives who predominate among occasional voters. The delay in holding the election may well provoke these erratic Tory supporters into turning up, as well as giving the Conservatives more time to develop their case. In bringing off the Big Sting, surprise is of the essence. Why did the pollsters make such idiots of themselves by forecasting a comfortable Tory win in February 1974? Because, according to Dr David Butler, the sage of Nuffield, they 'almost all introduced a weighting for differential turnout' — in other words, bunged the odd percentage point onto the Tory vote, because they still believed that lukewarm Tories were more likely to vote than lukewarm Labour supporters. You didn't know pollsters could do that? You thought they just asked people which way they were going to vote and then added up the results? Not so. Opinion polling is an art, and all art needs artists. There is no more absorbing sight than a pollster working on his raw data the night before publication. He sniPs off a point here, rounds up a fraction here, massages a differential: `hrnm, that doesn't sound quite right for the Liberals.' Hence, when one employs a tame pollster, it is not like ordering a daily pinta; it is more like taking on a personal soothsayer. He must attend in person to display his expertiseAnd how agreeable it is for a dab hand with the entrails, when thus summoned to the Presence, to descry things which ordinarY men may dimly descry without the aid of supernatural powers — but to describe these things with a precision and certainty which they cannot match. 'I see a great host of Liberals fleeing from some unnameable terror. Now they are running into the arms of a fair lady. The lady is smiling graciouslY. And there are clouds and everything is dark. But wait — the glass is clearing and' see a great gleaming roll of paper and there are names on the paper. And I see long life and great happiness for you and you will have to go on your travels again. That wi,Ji be six hundred guineas plus VAT, please. Naturally it would be absurd to suggest that Mr Callaghan's own private pollsters: Mr Robert Worcester and his Market an Opinion Research International, operate in this unscientific fashion. But if you want inY guess (from the firm which would have given you October 5th, if asked), I think MI Callaghan has boobed.
Previous page
