THE ELECTION
SHIRLEY SLIPS BACK
Michael Trend reports from
Cambridge, now the perfect three-horse race
GREAT St Mary's has been the site of many momentous occasions in the history of Cambridge: on Monday it added, mod- estly, to its tally the only public meeting attended by all the candidates of the three main political parties in the city at this general election. The verger is said to have been hoping that the meeting would not be `too political'. Some hope: this three-way battle in the ancient university city which the Spectator has taken as its 'special subject' for this election is being fought very hard by all the challengers. (For the first article and poll on the election in Cambridge, see the Spectator for 9 May). One suspects, however, that the ' good verger really meant that he hoped that the meeting would not be 'too rowdy'; and here he was on safer ground because the candidates — Robert Rhodes James (Con- servative), Shirley Williams (Alliance) and Chris Howard (Labour) — are conducting their campaigns in a way that brings credit to them all. And each of the three candi- dates can still see a way in which the great prize might fall their way.
There is about the campaign in Cam- bridge something of the feeling that one gets at a by-election. There is considerable interest from the press which itself feeds the campaign. All parties will look keenly at the results of our poll (see below for details). This shows that in the early stages of the campaign Labour has moved ahead and now lies neck-and-neck with the Con- servatives. This will be a disappointment to the Alliance who are compaigning with the slogan, 'Labour can't win'. At the moment our poll would suggest that this is not the case; but there were still over two clear weeks of the campaign to go when the poll was taken and many people feel that the Alliance will not stay so low in the polls.
From walking the streets and talking to the contestants earlier this week it was clear that each of the party machines was fighting its own corner with great skill. Of the challengers, Labour undoubtedly has the more difficult task on the streets. Their man Dr Chris Howard, (the 'Dr' refers to his thesis on 'Leadership and the Labour Party, 1910-26'), the former leader of the city council, lost his seat as a councillor at the recent local elections; the publicity given to him at this time in the local press may account in part for the great rise in public recognition of him as Labour's candidate as revealed in the poll below. He also starts with the disadvantage of Labour having been third in the 1983 general election. His campaigning headquarters and teams of party workers are, however, heartened by Labour's creditable perform- ance in the national polls and the evident success of Mr Kinnock's performance. This view is supported by the results of the Spectator poll. They campaign in the 'new style' of Labour politics; they have an attractive local candidate; they tour the streets with their loudspeakers playing that stirring melody from Brahms's first sym- phony (poor Brahms — but a clever choice by Labour); and, above all, they are paying close and detailed attention to their strong areas, trying to mobilise the 'anti- Thatcher' vote for Dr Howard.
Mrs Williams's supporters also know that the 'wouldn't vote Conservative if Hell froze over' voters — as we have heard them described — hold the key to the campaign. Unlike Labour, whose first ambition in Cambridge is to prevent 'slip- page' among their habitual voters, the Alliance does not have this sort of 'base- line' support and cannot rely on such tactics. Instead it has gone full out to win each and every vote that it can. One cannot avoid getting the feeling from the Alliance party workers that they are fighting a much more positive election than the others. `That's another one for us I think', is the music you hear on their doorstep cam- paigning. And the vast majority of those who tell Mrs Williams that they will change their votes to her say that they are former Labour voters.
The Conservatives, by contrast, are much more low key: a source of great irritation to their opponents. Mr Rhodes James's approach might well be criticised even by Conservative supporters in many parts of the country; but the other candi- dates in Cambridge understand the un- usual strength of his position. Mr Rhodes James's campaigning is of the old school: he does not, for example, canvass on Sundays, and — with the exception of the meeting in the church — will not do confrontational public meetings. In failing to provide his opponents with a decent target, he probably serves his own interests well; his personal vote — especially in the university — must include many who are not great devotees of the Prime Minister. There must also be many voters in a thoughtful city like Cambridge who appreciate a man who publicly lists his personal priorities as, 'first, my country; second, my city; third, my party'. Even Dr Howard has called him a 'civilised and principled man', although he added, 'a lone and ineffective voice in the wilder- ness'. Moreover, Mr Rhodes James was recently described by the right-wing Tory Action group as being what they termed a `notorious wet', and they advised Con- servatives to register a 'tactical abstention' against him. This will do him no harm. And he has in his favour the 'Cambridge factor' which has meant that Cambridge's voting habits at general elections since the war have been remarkably favourable to the Conservatives whatever else was hap- pening in local politics. Cambridge is, as Mr Rhodes James says, a `one-off .
At the time of writing, the campaign is still in its early stages; but it has already been full of incident, much of it generated by the Alliance. David Steel and David Owen held one of their 'Ask the Alliance' evening meetings here with the Corn Ex- change overflowing onto the streets. Mr Steel asked the electorate to 'give us Shirley'. The Conservatives, however, were equal to the occasion. They managed on the same day to bring out the former Labour MP, Neville Sandelson, a founder member of the SDP, who urged Alliance voters in Cambridge to support Mr Rhodes James on the grounds that only a decisive Conservative victory would ensure the end of the Labour Party.
The feeling at Cambridge is that all is still to play for. A number of voters spoken to were clearly in the process of changing their minds and a number yet to make up their minds at all. At one front door in particular, out with the new Labour leader of the city council, we met the ultimate undecided voter: a 'born again' Christian who was waiting to get into the booth before seeking the Lord's guidance as to where to place his cross. At the moment in Cambridge one cannot but come away with the feeling that it is a close call and such last-minute influences will probably decide the outcome.
Previous page
