Politics
Mr Pym's standard
("1 ivilised . sense of social obligation . . . N./courteous and detached . . . rolling acres — the Conservative Wet is a type clearly defined and much praised by anyone who has it in for Mrs Thatcher. The Labour party is now entranced by an imagined era of 'caring Toryism' when dear old men came up from their country houses to distribute largesse and bestow their benison upon the less fortunate. In the 'arts' debate in the House of Commons last week (the first for 25 years, and, let us hope, the last for the next 25), Mr Norman Buchan, the Labour spokesman, was so carried away by this theme he even managed to describe Mr Norman St John Stevas as a 'gentleman'.
It has not always been easy for the less partisan to make the image fit the men con- cerned. Lord Carrington, for instance — rolling acres certainly, but not just a touch of steely ambition? Lord Soames — not a terrifically caring lifestyle. Sir Ian Gilmour — so de haut that he never managed to reach en bas at all. If one were asked to name the gents who have served in Mrs Thatcher's Cabinet, the names that spring to mind are Sir Geoffrey Howe, Sir Keith Joseph, Mr John Biffen and Lord Whitelaw. Only the last is a toff and a Wet. As one would expect, good manners and decency are fairly randomly distributed bet- ween social classes and different points of view. But the myth of the Wet lingers on, and its latest and possibly last embodiment is Mr Francis Pym.
As befits the myth, the Sunday Times, which last week serialised his new book The Politics of Consent, did its best to make Mr Pym out as a piece of old England. There he was, standing in front of what looked like the bottom of some fan vaulting, presumably of a church or a college. Unfor- tunately, the effect was reminiscent of a gargoyle. Mr Pym declared his aim:'.. . my concern is that the flag of traditional Con- servatism is kept flying, . . . so that one day a standard-bearer can pick it up and put it back at the centre of our affairs.' Quite understandably, Mr Pym still hopes to be that standard-bearer. It would make a good painting in the style of Lady Butler — 'Cap- tain Pym picks up the standard', perhaps even paired with a sequel, 'Captain Pym puts the standard back in the centre of our affairs'. What are the words emblazoned on Mr Pym's bonny flag? They oppose Mrs Thatcher: 'She likes everything to be clear- cut: absolutely in favour of one thing, ab- solutely against another.' Not Mr Pym:
. my approach, which is no less decisive . . . is to say — yes, we should take this ac- tion, but we should do it in a particular way, because we must take into account the legitimate view of this group or that.'
As a slogan, Mr Pym's standard lacks something, although that of course does not mean that he is not right. When we take action, we certainly should try to do it in a particular way and do our best to take into account the legitimate view of this group or that. But if he really thinks that Mrs That- cher has failed to do this, how is it that he generously attributes to her a list of suc- cesses (national security, low inflation, im- proved image abroad, industrial improve- ment, political skill) which should be enough for any Prime Minister? Of course Mr Pym is right that people should act in the light of circumstances rather than the darkness of bigotry — the question is, would he and his allies have acted righter than Mrs Thatcher in the circumstances of the past five years? Would they act righter if they gained con- trol of the Conservative party now?
Mr Pym must be pleased with The timing of his book's publication. There is an indif- ferent performance in the European Parlia- ment elections (though nothing to be much upset by), a bad loss in Portsmouth, and there is Mr Scargill. Might not discontented and nervous Tory MPs look to the standard-bearer of the centre, or at least start a political argument which would make Mrs Thatcher rather uncomfortable? Support for this view comes from the story in Tuesday's Daily Telegraph that the Queen is seriously alarmed by the turn the miners' strike is taking. One should remember that the Windsor family has an hereditary weakness for the miners. The Queen's worry will not be taken to mean that the Government should stand firm: we are reaching the dangerous territory in which Something Must Be Done, where those Tories who do not like Mrs Thatcher will start calling for a settlement in the name of national unity.
So far, no member of the Cabinet has publicly broken ranks. Morale seems quite high. Indeed, in his statement to the House of Commons on Tuesday, Mr Leon Brittan was on unusually good form. But surely the time cannot be far off when someone makes a speech about the need to bind up the wounds, explaining how further con- frontation is 'just what Mr Scargill and his fellow extremists want', calling for all men of goodwill to 'get round the table' and sort out their differences. Many will happily forget that what Mr MacGregor is offering the miners is extremely generous, and will sub-consciously accept the equation (en- couraged, one suspects, by some officials of the Coal Board) of Mr MacGregor and Mr Scargill as two intransigents equally in- capable of reason. Such a time, Mr Pym must feel, will be his last moment of possi- ble greatness.
He will surely be disappointed. History suggests that it takes a very great
catastrophe, such as two election defeats, for the Conservative party to cast its leader aside. And even if Mrs Thatcher were somehow to vanish from the scene, Mr gYin is not a sufficiently energetic, commanding or attractive politician to be her likely sue- cessor. It is difficult to believe that the TorY Left would prefer Mr Pym to Mr Michael Heseltine, the nouveau riche who, as En" vironment Secretary, stopped Squire PYin from razing his ancestral home to rbe ground and putting up a convenient modern house.
Besides, this is not 1974. It may be that the cowardice of politicians, espeetaw Conservative politicians, in the face 01 1.0 dustrial strength, has not changed, but what has altered is the public view of mine° miners and particularly of miners' leaders. who want to give up get good terms, minels who want to go on working are virtuain. guaranteed a job — these facts are known, and Mr Scargill, unlike Lord Gormley, Is generally and correctly thought to be 3 revolting figure. Most of us would surely be, at least a little shocked if Mr Len Murta). got hit on the head in some demonstration, with Mr Scargill, one just hopes that it hurl. This means that it becomes much more dif" ficult for the Conservatives to comprornis!' Since Mr Scargill sticks to a set of denial° which is plainly ridiculous, the attempts to of which there seem to been several — reduce the Coal Board's demands are doomed to fail. For all its words, t,ller Government would really be much haPP:,,e letting the miners off again. FortunatelJn't this time it is not easy. In fact, the ree,e'" historical analogy is with the Falklarw...,5" There the Government was looking at eve" turn for a way out of the mess. More that; once it offered Argentina terms which werh highly discreditable to Britain. But eac, time, the junta was too pig-headed to aeri cept. General Galtieri kept Mrs Thatcher course. So it is with Mr Scargill, who is un. wittingly preparing for Mrs Thatcher t another triumph which she does Oil altogether deserve. And one might reea. that the Falklands was not an enterpris` from which Mr Pym emerged with gl°rYile What happens next? Because of W' a5 encouraged at Orgreave, Mr Scare' 11,0 now made it easier for the Government 'a, encourage further legal reprisals. Tile. tr°,,r$ ble with the present tactics is that the Min's, and the police both suffer, but the mine,r? union does not. The Liberals and the Svbe are now calling for the use of .t Prior/Tebbit laws on secondary P The Government all but admits that it ,discourages this. But is it really like lY trio other miners' leaders will dare to tnli, against Mr Scargill until his actions apPet7t to be destroying not only their members bile ick.etlq; the union itself? If the law removes t,„ miners' funds, the Labour party and_Ol4 TUC will not be able to save them. The TUC will go down, fighting certainly, but NUM
will go down.
Charles Moore
Previous page
