POLITICAL COMMENTARY
Young turks in hosiery
AUBERON WAUGH
It is a commonplace among Conservatives of the duller, more experienced variety to express pious horror (eagerly echoed by commentators on the left) at the idea of an enormous Tory landslide at the next election, explaining that such an eventu- ality would bring much trouble for the revered leadership in its struggle to keep the party's moderate, responsible and, above all, national image. The apparition of these gaunt, fire-breathing young Powel- lites waiting in the wings for a Tory land- slide had its exact counterpart in the con- versation of right wing Labour party bores before the 1966 election. Then, if you re- member, the Parliamentary Labour party was going to be taken over by wild young Trotskyites dedicated to the overthrow of the world as we knew it by exposing the inherent contradictions of the capitalist sys- tem. Yet when the Labour landslide occurred the new Labour firebrands proved meek as lambs for three years, while Mr Wilson's government followed half-under- stood and wildly unsuccessful Conservative policies in every sphere. In short, the new Labour left has proved not so much a paper tiger as a rather damp, papier-mâché kitten which is already looking the worse for too much playing with itself.
If one tries to apply the analogy of Lab- our's wild young things to the Conservative party one must necessarily suppose that there is an identical pool of wild young Conservatives, thirsting to apply the doc- trines of the free market and Anglo-Saxon eugenics, whose members are adopted only by those constituencies which cannot attract better candidates by virtue of the existing Labour majority. Alternatively, I have heard it suggested that the Conserva- tive rump which will be swept to power consists for the most part of axed majors who have sunk their service gratuities in Kenyan mushrooms farms, lost everything, been turned down by the Secret Service and told that the post of diplomatic cor- respondent for the Sunday Telegraph is already filled. In my experience, these people either take Holy Orders or become traffic wardens (I have only heard of one who has done both) after they are sacked from being assistant masters at a prep school. How- ever, it is one of the glories of our constitu- tion that clergymen of the Established Church are not allowed to stand for parli- ament, and it is one of the glories of the Conservative party that very few teachers are ever selected—there are only three Tory teachers in the present Parliament, against fifty-six Labour ones. Among the eighty-five Conservative candidates for existing Labour seats most likely to be elected in a landslide (on a swing of 61 per cent or less) there are very few majors and only two teachers, as against nine farmers, six barristers, eight journalists, six people concerned with insurance and seven who call themselves management consultants.
Indeed, if one analyses this list of a hun- dred candidates who must make up what- ever is meant by the coming right-wing menace, it is hard to draw any such excit- ing conclusions. The only valid comparison seems to be between those candidates sel- ected for marginal constituencies and those selected for seats already held by the Con-
servatives, and here the difference is strik- ing. Of the 253 Conservative members re- turned in 1966—all for what would norm- ally be the safer sort of Tory seat-216 were from public schools, of whom fifty-four were from Eton alone. Where constituency associations are choos, new condidates for a Tory-held seat, this pattern is repeated. Of eleven candidates thus selected, eight are from public schools (four from Eton) and only two from grammar school. However, among the eighty-five 'new' Tories I have mentioned, there are nearly thirty from the grammar schools and a mere thirty-five from any public school which anybody has ever heard of. And I can count only four Etonians, although possibly one or two gave me the slip.
Of course, one must not fall into the trap of supposing that these grammar school chappies are any better than the public school types they replace. That would be a terrible mistake. Almost certainly, they will prove much worse. But these figures do go to show something which your political correspondent has always disbelieved, that the first household god which the Conserva- tive party sacrifices when it feels itself to be in trouble is the ideal of the public school man. Needless to say, this shift has not produced any improvement in the actual academic qualifications obtained. Of 253 Tories returned in 1966, 170 had en- joyed a university education (one charitably supposes that they all graduated). Of the eighty-five poiential newcomers, on my count, only forty-three have degrees—a drop of more than 15 per cent; bringing the Tories down below the 1966 Labour aver- age, if repeated throughout the party.
It is very difficult from the single-sheet biographies of candidates supplied by Con- servative Central Office to decide whether the people described are on the right of the party, or on the left, or whether, like most Conservatives, they are more or less non- political and anxious only to deploy those qualities of leadership, organisation, public spiritedness and decency which they feel they possess. However, so far as the Powel- lite menace is concerned, only two of them list immigration as one of their major areas of concern (one of those, to my certain knowledge, is no Powellite) and practically none seems interested in the economy (as opposed to finance, which has a general fascination). None bothers to mention membership of the Monday Club—although I believe that about six of the eighty-live belong—but there is a fair number of Bow Groupers. This comparative lack of inter- est in the problems of immigration must surely be significant, most especially since every candidate who has ever crossed the Channel tends to describe himself as being particularly interested in foreign affairs, and every candidate who did his national service as an expert in defence.
That said, it seems hard to know exactly what considerations do influence constitu- ency associations in their choice of candi- dates. It is easy to understand the sort of argument which persuaded Hastings to select a candidate called Warren. Quite apart from his name, this Warren has risen from shop floor to management in the elec- tronics industry, and now supplies computer
services to industry and commerce, if given half a chance. Plainly, he is ideally suited to tramp the division lobbies. Again, it is easy to understand how one would suddenly warm to a candidate like Mr Ernie Money (Ipswich) who collects antiques and likes to preserve old buildings, or Dr Tom Stutta- ford (Norwich South) who is 'keenly inter- ested in the work of lesser-known East Anglian artists and eighteenth-century him. iture makers'. Dull would he be of soul who could pass by Mr Maurice Gaffney of Woolwich West, who describes himself proudly thus: 'Although trained as an en- gineer (he is an Assoc. I. Mech. E and mmiss) Mr Gaffney is a Restaurateur'. Any Assoc. I. Mech. E. or MIMSA who turns his back on it all to become a restaurateur will get my vote every time. But the sad truth is that there seem very few among the eighty-five whom one would desperately wish to meet.
Perhaps this sort of consideration is un- likely to carry much weight with constitu- ency associations who have been rattled by losing the last election. What does one do when someone describing himself as a man- agement consultant comes to the door? Does one give him sherry in the drawing room, or tea and a bun in the kitchen? Again, why is there this absurdly exagger- ated emphasis on the clothing trade? Ber- wick and East Lothian offer us the director of a knitwear firm, Bebington the director of a men's wear chain. Wellingborough's candidate directs the family retail clothing business. Bury and Ratcliffe's choice has spent his whole life in the clothing industry, while Baron's Court can only meet the appalling threat of Ivor Richard, the sitting member, by applying once again to the sales department of a firm of hosiery and fancy goods importers. Bradford North has found a worsted cloth manufacturer, while Hitchin, fair Hitchin, proudly flaunts a marketing manager in corsets against Mrs Shirley Williams. Seven clothiers in this in- take alone—while, inexplicably enough. one can search the list of eight-five hopefuls without finding a single grocer. Still, there are a few hopefuls with whom one might be prepared to pass the time of day without too much embarrassment. Soc- ial intercourse with backbenchers is some- thing which political correspondents gener- ally try to avoid, since it can only lead to gloom, and Midlands members are often the worst, but one always tries. Birming- ham is a law unto itself. But Perry Bo Conservatives, to challenge Mr Christophe Price, have produced someone who no only has the traditional Birmingham qualifi cations of being a member of the Britis Legion and Birmingham Fellowship of th Handicapped, but also a florist—Mr Jo Kin sey. One welcomes him with open arm among all those clothiers and managemen consultants. He is just what the Palace o Westminster needs.
All in all, it seems that we have Net little to fear from the newcomers. They ar much younger than the average Tory Me her, with only one sexagenarian, and mo of the over-fiftys are defeated form Members. With six candidates in the 'thin or under' age group, and thirty-eight I their thirties, they will bring in almost many young Members as were returned all the safe Tory seats put together in 19 The new Members may be unexcitin enough, but it is the hideous deadv which has never stirred from the To back benchers which constitutes the r source of terror and gloom.
Previous page
