Doppelganger
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FOR reading Parliamentary debates, especially those in the House of Commons, a special technique or code is required, rather like one of those useful devices that blank out three parts of a bogus text and show up the true message in the spaces still left open. It is seldom, although not unknown, that a speaker does not have one or two points worth mentioning, but it seems to be more than his career is worth to put the points and leave it at that. He wraps them up in padding until it is difficult to recognize them, and protects them further by a stream of abuse directed towards whoever happens to be seated on the opposite side of the House.
Much of the haranguing and name-calling is in the tradition of good clean fun. M.P.s are expected to be wordy, and they chaff each other as if inviting an attack. But when the effervescence has died down and the speeches appear in the cold print of Hansard, they often seem very flat indeed. Parliament even appears to be playing a deliberate game of mystification. Only the initiated can tell whether a debate has been harmonious or stormy, constructive or the reverse, and the experts contradict each other at times. This is hardly surprising when a speech that appears to contain little besides vilification is described from the other side as a statesmanlike approach, and another apparently moderate and sensible speech is said to be introducing politics into what ought to be a non-party issue.
Bearing all this in mind, it is still possible to declare that the discussions on transport in both Houses of Parliament have been notably more agreeable in the first few weeks of this session than, say, a year ago. The statistician may count just as many jibes, accusations and threats. These are not as significant as the general impression that for the time being there is not the gulf that is usually so noticeable between the two parties.
Unpredictable Weather The atmosphere may change, for the weather is as unpredictable inside Parliament as it is outside. Whatever happens, there will be a good deal of interest in the ideas and opinions on transport that eventually emerge from the left side of the House of Commons. The individual M.P., with no wish to fall foul' of his party unless absolutely necessary, must now take care what he says on such subjects as nationalization and integration.
Symbolic—although it may not be symptomatic—of the hesitations on politics within the Labour party is the fact that different people have been chosen to deal with transport matters by the party's leader and. by the party's transport committee. Mr. Hugh Gaitskell has delegated to Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn the task of opening debates for the opposition, with Mr. Robert Mellish as second string. The chairman and vice-chairman of the transport committee appointed by the party are Mr. Ernest Popplewell and Mr. Frank McLeavy.
There may be disadvantages in this arrangement. One is that whenever transport is debated each of the four will almost certainly have to be allowed to speak. There is a danger that this may lead to monotony after there have been several debates. The best of speakers is bound to start repeating himself if called upon too often. Other Socialist M.P.s with something useful to contribute might be discouraged from making transport one of their subjects c24 of study when they find they have so few opportunities of speaking on it.
The occupational tendency of M.P.s to spread themselves when a few short sentences would do the job equally well may appear to be growing if the same people get up too often. It may become more difficult than ever to judge the true spirit in which the discussion is being conducted. Whatever the temper of the language, there will always be one important clue to follow. The point to look for is whether the speakers on the Labour side attack head-on or, instead, agree in principle with what the Government have in mind, and merely propose different methods of producing broadly the same results. The attack may take the form either of downright opposition or of proposals that run completely counter to Conservative policy. The alternative' is to work within the framework of that policy and contrive as often as possible to stand in the limelight that the Government are just proposing to turn. on themselves.
Neutral Ground Mr. Wedgwood Benn has already contrived once or twice to use this later technique on comparatively, neutral ground. Twice during the week before Parliament adjourned for Christmas he introduced the subject of traffic congestion. He was able on each occasion to be the first speaker, Which made it possible for him to put all the points he wanted, secure in the knowledge that nobody could steal his thunder.
On the second occasion he was introducing a Bill to give the Minister of Transport more power to control the flow of traffic by means of a master plan without having to submit to the intervention of local authorities. The Bill was such that the Conservatives were not likely to oppose it in principle.
, He may be disposed to continue with the tactics that have so far pi-I:wed successful and have won him praise from all quarters, including the Government benches. Deprived of power because he sits on the wrong side of the House, he is determined to present himself as something more colourful than a mere " shadow " Minister of Transport. His role will be rather that of doppelganger, Mr. Ernest Marples' other self. Instead of shadow boxing, with the shadow inevitably the loser, Mr. Wedgwood Benn will employ a kind of political judo, using the strength of his opponent to attain his own ends.
Traffic congestion was an easy subject on which to practise. The road programme will present little more difficulty. The test will come with the really contentious themes, such as the road-rail problem, the fortunes of the British Transport Commission, licensing and, of course, nationalization. On all these matters the adaptable and intelligent Mr. Wedgwood Benn may once again contrive to read the mind of the Minister or of the Government and forestall them with his own proposals, a little earlier and a little more far-reaching than theirs.
He still has to reckon with his own party. They may be willing to allow him the maximum scope, feeling that, as they have lost the art of winning elections, there is no objection to learning from the Conservatives. Or they may agree that a subtle form of imitation is the best they can do until they have made up their minds about their policy.