Bring back Benn
rt is wrong to argue that the choice of
Mr Tony Benn as Labour candidate for Chesterfield proves anything very dreadful about the state of the Labour Party. The choice does not show, for instance, that Labour, despite its recent more benign ap- pearance, is irredeemably extremist. Stronger evidence of this would have been the preference of Mr Cliff Fox, the left- wing miner, over Mr Benn. For Mr Benn, unlike Mr Fox, is not only a man of the hard Left. He is also a politician of such stature that a constituency party is doing no more than its duty by making him its can- didate. As he himself has boasted, he has won 12 parliamentary elections. He is a skilled campaigner, and a man who has fac- ed and overcome a great deal of political adversity. He is intelligent, original (by the not very high standards of politicians), elo- quent and energetic.
Indeed, Mr Benn's return to the House of Commons would set Labour the test which it needs. Any party capable of governing should be capable of keeping Mr Benn in check and of exploiting his talents. Mr Benn's successes in changing the constitu- tion of Labour and so moving the party to the control of the Left did not derive from his intellectual power; rather, he filled the vacuum left by the decay of the moderate Labour position for which people like Mr Healey and Mr Hattersley failed to fight. People like Dr Owen and Mr Jenkins took their fight out of the party altogether. Mr Benn, on the other hand, worked hard. He mustered the theoretical arguments, the practical details and the troops, and his op- ponents did not. He tested his party, and it failed. As an MP in 1984, he would test it again, forcing Mr Neil Kinnock, for the first time since he became leader, to make his own position clear. So far Mr Kinnock has avoided serious criticism from his own party; and he has not said or done much which would allow Conservatives to attack him. He has lain low and hoped that he will gradually be accepted as a genial figure in the public mind. With Mr Benn returned, he will have to do rather more. Mr Benn will articulate the alarm of the Left at what they will see as Mr Kinnock's temporising, and so force Labour to make choices which it would rather postpone.
It is hard to see how this challenge from the Left could be bad for the rest of us. If Mr Kinnock fails to answer it, then Labour slips still further away from being a party of government, to the general satisfaction of those who dislike socialism. If he succeeds, he can only do so by exerting the sort of discipline which suggests that he has the mettle and the commonsense to make a Prime Minister. After all, Messrs Wilson and Callaghan kept Mr Benn more or less under control. Mr Foot did not, and never became Prime Minister.
The other prevailing orthodoxy, this time among Conservatives, is that Mr Benn is `Mrs Thatcher's secret weapon'. There is little evidence for this. Of course Mr Benn frightens many people, some of whom may be voters who would otherwise support the Labour Party; but he is equally an exponent of socialist arguments now unrivalled in his party, and an inspiration to a very high proportion of those who work for Labour in the constituencies. He can be effective in Parliament, on television, in of- fice. He is a formidable opponent — in other words, a danger to the Conservatives. He has been foremost in explaining Conser- vative policies as a systematic exploitation of working people. He has not succeeded in convincing the majority that he is right, but he has made life hard for the Government, which is still extremely sensitive to the ac- cusation that it is callous and class-based. When Mr Foot was Labour leader, he really was an asset to the Conservatives because he was so obviously unfitted for the job for which, in June 1983, he applied. Mr Benn is fitted to be a Labour MP and to be a minister.
None of which is to say that Mr Benn is a Good Thing, or even a Good Man. Throughout his political life he has peddled foolish and obnoxious ideas. To this, in re- cent years, he has added an obsession with his 'persecution' by the press, and a cold fanaticism which has separated him from friends and, indeed, from the variety of political discourse which every politician should enjoy. He is obsessed with his own record and with others' presentation of it. He is ruthless in his self-promotion and politicking (used to great effect in Chester- field), unrestrained in his accusations against his colleagues, yet a great and ap- parently convinced asserter of his own in- tegrity. He is an odious, intolerant man, prepared to encourage, though not himself manifest, the rage of the mob. Like all ideologues, he is an unscrupulous twister of the truth; and he is always ready, when oc- casion prompts, to support the most ex- treme and intolerant groups in British socie- ty. When Gerry Adams addressed the fringe of the Labour conference last autumn, Mr Benn made sure to send him a message of support.
There may, therefore be some division between the political observer and the Chesterfield voter. Anyone who enjoys watching politics, indeed, anyone who thinks that politics badly needs the presence of arresting personalities, should hope that Mr Benn is returned. What would be best for Chesterfield is another matter. It must be difficult to bring oneself to vote for a man so obviously hostile to the best in- terests of the British nation. But one may still half hope that the people of Chester- field will hold their noses and do so.
Previous page
