LATEST PROSPECTS AT FULHAM
Vincent Hanna on the by-products of the by-election business
IT OUGHT to be known as Frindal- McKenzie's syndrome. 'Did you know,' said the helpful man on the telephone, `that it's the 66th London by-election since the war and Labour haven't gained a seat for 29 years?' I thought I recognised his voice. I'm sure he sat behind me last summer during County Week in Canter- bury pouring into my ear the batting averages of left-handed Kent batsmen. By-elections (and cricket) bring out the statistician in otherwise normal folk, and with three of them pending they're all at it.
`What I reckon guy,' remarked my taxi- driver in Fulham last Thursday, 'is that about 25 per cent of your yuppy vote is going to swing to the Alliance this time.' At least cricket fanatics have but one authoritative Wisden to which to refer. Owing to what appears to be some sort of cartel within the Society of Political Au- thors, or whatever, the amateur psepho- logist must carry at all times three large tomes of political facts to settle arguments with taxi-drivers.
Apart from Fulham the Government is facing two other political tests, in Der- byshire West and Ryedale, and Central Office is in a tizzy about them. The well-informed taxi-driver or cricket statisti- cian might wonder why. All governments especially in mid-term, tend to do badly in by-elections. Of the 63 seats since 1945 which have changed hands at by-elections, 44 of them have been from the party in power. And so what? In politics have not things a way of balancing themselves up? Is there not a Mitcham and Morden around every corner with which to dry the tears of a Hillhead? 'Remember Ashfield, squire, I had Tim Smith in my cab once. . . '. But talk like that is frowned upon in Smith Square and Walworth Road, where many people and large resources have been sacrificed to winning. `It's a bit like keeping a Kerry Blue terrier,' an old agent once told me. 'If you don't keep feeding it, the thing eventually eats you.' In truth by-elections are imPor" tant only because of their effect on party morale, which certainly can be dramatic. Should the Tories lose Fulham badly, or the Liberals sneak home in one of the other two seats, the summer air will hum with backbenchers whingeing that Mrs Thatcher is spoiling their chances of re- election. Should Labour win Fulham the air will be filled with Neil Kinnock announcing that the tide has turned. Both Conservatives and Socialists seem to have convinced themselves that the by-election thermometer is an accurate measure of their political health. For the Alliance, 'however, by-elections are more transfusion than thermometer. It needs them to stay alive. This is why by-elections have be come big business. Talking about business, it's worth men- tioning the Variation of Candidates E%" penses Order which came into force on 2 March and increased the amount which lawfully may be spent on any campaign t° £3,240 plus 2.8p a voter. It may strike Y°1'1, that £4,723.02 is a tidy sum to scatter about the streets of Fulham but in a by-election it isn't. The three mainparties will have spent vastly in excess of that before the campaign is over. Of course one would 0' suggest that anything unlawful has beetle perpetrated by anyone, but the entire system of election expenses has been no' to look farcical by a tacit understanding among the main parties, in by-elections, that too deep an inquiry will not be fna°,, into what the others are up to, or eve' when they start their campaigns. Legitimate expenses are designed to cover staff wages, the hire of equipment transport and printing. But how do you account for by-products of the by-election business such as candidate media training? Most of them get it nowadays. They are taught to smile a lot, look self-assured, and commit themselves as little as possible. All rough stuff at press conferences is handled by another innovation, the professional minder (called rather sweetly the `candi- ate's friend') who sits alongside. At Fulham this role is daily performed for the Tory and Labour candidates by Michael Portillo and Frank Dobson respectively, amiable men who have learned to cultivate a nice line in simulated outrage. The rationale behind such planning is that whilst good by-election candidates rarely win many extra votes, bad ones can lose sackfuls. The ghosts of Tony Cook and John Butcher (the hapless victims of the by-election rat-race at Crosby and Darling- ton) still stalk the hustings. And nowadays no one takes any chances. So what is happening out there in the three contests, one on 10 April, the others nervously pencilled in for 8 May? News- night commissioned a survey at the weekend in each of the constituencies which produced the following results:
Fulham Derbyshire West Ryedale Con 31 (-15) 39 (-17) 47 (-12)
Lab 44 (+10) 29 (+12) 17 (+7) Alliance 23 (+5) 32 (+5) 35 (+5) Others 2 The surveys, especially when combined With other polls both national and in Fulham, indicate two current trends. Labour appears to have climbed back to its (losing) 1979 position (38 per cent) but its support is structured in a different way from seven years ago. It has ten per cent fewer women than men; a shrinking base (34 per cent) amongst manual workers, council tenants, and the unemployed. It is, however now attracting 49 per cent of newly registered voters. Such a level of support, regarded by Party faithful as hopeless in 1979, may serve it well in a three-party system at a general election. But although it looks the early favourite in Fulham, Labour's recov- ery may make it easier for the Government to defend Derbyshire West and Ryedale. The Tories do not seem to have yet shaken off the legacy of the Westland affair. Sixty-seven per cent of all voters polled in the three constituencies said 'No' When asked if the Government could be regarded as 'honest', and that included over 30 per cent of committed Tory sup- porters. In spite of a favourable rating for Nigel Lawson and a cautious welcome for his Budget, more Tory supporters dis- approve than approve of the Government's handling of unemployment, health, and education. Meanwhile the Alliance seem uncon- cerned with their present poor standing in the opinion polls. They point to similar exercises at Hillhead, Portsmouth, and Brecon and in that sense they are right. The Alliance usually poll well in excess of national polls in by-elections and in this parliament on average have managed to increase their 1983 share of the votes by over 11 per cent.
Will any of this make any difference to the final results on 10 April or 8 May, or to the general election, or to political life as we know it? I'm afraid I haven't a clue. But I did ask my friend on the telephone (the one with Frindal-McKenzie's syndrome) what he reckoned. Did you know,' he said, 'that Fulham is the 72nd worst Alliance prospect but only if you express it as a percentage of. . . I hung up.
Previous page
