SHARED OPINION

I must break the news to Taki: Max Hastings is my leader

FRANK JOHNSON

Taki, writing in the Sunday Times under the heading 'The New Battle of Hastings', says that, though 'no fan' of Lord Archer, he will do everything he can to help him become London's first directly elected mayor. He will do so because Archer's can- didacy is opposed by Mr Max Hastings, for- mer editor of the Daily Telegraph, now edi- tor of the London Evening Standard.

Taki has long disapproved of Mr Hast- ings. The most recent occasion for that dis- approval was an incident at Eton. Taki told his Sunday Times readers that a couple of weeks ago Mr Hastings gave a talk at that school on 'leadership'. During subsequent questions, a boy of 17 rose and asked Mr Hastings why, in Taki's words, 'Hastings had been so vicious in his attacks against Sir James Goldsmith in the run-up to last year's election'.

Taki continued that 'people made all sorts of signs to Hastings', but he still 'tore into Jimmy'. The boy was, of course, Gold- smith's son. Therefore Taki hoped Lord Archer would win.

This says much for Taki's loyalty to his friend, James Goldsmith, but nothing about whether Lord Archer should be London's mayor. I raise the subject because, like Mr Hastings, I do not think he should.

Few causes, if any, are vitiated by their proponents. Taki is a student of military history. He therefore knows that Britain could only defeat Nazi Germany in alliance with the Soviet Union. In the struggle against an Archer mayoralty, we should think of Mr Hastings as the Soviet Union. We Western democrats should be prepared to form an alliance with him. The Soviet Union's motive in entering this alliance is irrelevant; likewise Mr Hastings's motive in opposing Lord Archer. The opposition is the thing, not the reasons for it.

But for those of us who do not want Lord Archer to be our mayor, Mr Hastings is at present more than our ally. Appropriately for one who has addressed Eton's youth on leadership, he is our leader. He and the Evening Standard are the only voices, in a position to influence London voters, at pre- sent raised against the Archer candidacy.

Publicly raised, that is; the voices raised privately include nearly all of any signifi- cance across the Conservative party. Each hopes, however, that one of the others will be the first to speak out. It has been impos sible to find a Tory of any weight to write an article for this magazine saying that Lord Archer should not be Conservative mayoral candidate. `I'd love to, I'd really love to, don't tempt me . . . but, but, I just don't think I should . . . not just yet, any- way. It just wouldn't look right, coming from me at the moment. But what about old so-and-so? He can't stand him. He'd do it.' No, he won't. None of them will yet. They might later. But by that time, Lord Archer would have failed — or look like failing — to secure the candidacy; in which case the article would be unnecessary.

The Conservative mayoral candidate, it should be explained for those not following the matter all that closely, will be chosen by what the Americans call a primary: that is, in this instance, a ballot of all the Conser- vative party's London members. Many of them would probably see nothing wrong with Lord Archer's becoming mayor. But here lies the weakness of the primary sys- tem. It assumes that each party member knows as much as each party elder. In the old days, American presidential candidates were chosen partly by a series of primaries in individual states, as now, but also by party elders in 'smoke-filled rooms' at the convention.

The mix of the two meant that the smok- ers could mitigate the worst choices of the primaries, and the primaries could ensure that the smokers did not have it all their own way. Such a system produced, in the Democratic party, Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the past generation, candidates have been chosen solely by the primaries. That has produced, in the Democratic party, Mr Jimmy Carter and President Clinton. The process by which the Conservative mayoral candidate is chosen badly needs a few smoke-filled rooms.

What is so wrong with Lord Archer as mayor? He would seem, on the face of it, an amiable soul. We journalists all know him. We have accepted his hospitality. We all have our Jeffrey stories. One of mine is my asking, in his flat, or 'penthouse', as it is often written up, 'Where's the loo, Jeffrey?' To which he replied, 'Straight down the corridor and turn right at the Picasso.' I realise that as many people might find that story endearing as find it parvenu. It is not of itself a necessary reason for not making him mayor.

A better reason is aesthetic. The election will take place in this parliament. If the Conservative candidate wins, he will sel- dom be off television. By that time, the country may be beginning to tire of Mr Blair. Certainly, it will be tiring of the rest of this government. It will be time for politicians who are 'uncool'. Lord Archer has spent his life identifying himself with successive predecessors of Cool Britannia, from the 1960s on.

There is also what Americans call the `character issue'. As part of its campaign, the Standard had a truly remarkable article about Lord Archer by Mr Paul Foot. Some readers will bridle. Not Foot, the Trot? This is to misunderstand Mr Foot's useful- ness to our public life. He is a caster-down of the mighty from their places. He doubt- less thinks he thus helps undermine the bourgeois order. Election returns suggest that he has no chance of that. In playing upon our disapproval of wrongdoing, he is not using us bourgeois, we are using him. His exposures help strengthen the bour- geoisie by making it more respectable.

Mr Foot alleged against Lord Archer a series of deceptions over the years to which Lord Archer has never effectively replied. In some of these cases, all he need have done was to put them down to youthful ras- cality. That is what I do when confronted with mine, though I tend not to advance that defence for anything delinquent after I reached about 40.

At least one of the allegations against Lord Archer was baffling: the suggestion that a man of his name, and answering his description, had left a Canadian depart- ment store with two suits, not having paid. Shoplifters do not usually shoplift suits. How would one get them out of the shop unnoticed? But surely Lord Archer could now go into some detail in explaining this incident.

My purpose is not to assume that all Mr Foot's information is correct. Rather is it to suggest that Lord Archer would have to spend much of his candidacy and possible mayoralty denying such incidents. And this at a time when, on the evidence of the gov- ernment so far, New Labour sleaze will be one of the Tories' best issues. I do not claim moral superiority over Lord Archer. But, then, I am not trying to become mayor of London. In his own interests, and those of his party, we should keep Lord Archer entertaining guests in his 'penthouse' and directing them past the Picasso.