|
You’d think that as
the
year draws to its end all
attention would be focussed on the on-going war, whose, extent, duration
and consequences are all quite unpredictable. And it’s not just the
actual fighting that should concern us, but even more, perhaps, what the
war has revealed about our opinions and our thought processes. For me at
least the thoughts of fellow-citizens as revealed in correspondence
columns, have been depressing beyond words, thanks to the shallow
perverse, foolish and malicious assertions infesting our Press.
From such shocking
irritants we must turn in grateful relief to Henry McLeish. Firstly, let
us be thankful that our own leaders set us a good example. They treated
the unfortunate Minister with civility, and were most admirably free
from any form of cruelty in their comments. They were moved perhaps by a
decent compassion, but perhaps also by the full awareness that neither
Mr McLeish’s actions nor his shortcomings were all, that important. As
many people have pointed out, our national political problem is that the McLeish story could be
capped by Labour’s
behaviour in any part of our country where their power is virtually
undetected, let alone challenged.
Some time ago I was
reminiscing in these columns about Election Day in a Fife Labour
stronghold — part of what was the McLeish constituency in fact. It was
quickly made clear to me that my experiences were by no means unique,
and that many Party colleagues could tell their own tales about Labour’s
exercise of power anywhere they think they can get away with
malpractice. Much more important than these various reports, however, is
the realisation that Labour doesn’t know it is doing anything
untoward. In part they are just like the rest of us while the contest is
on —caught up in the highly partisan emotions which encourage double
standards — so we should not judge them purely on their behaviour at
election time, disgraceful though it often is. The need to fear and
denounce their conduct is occasioned by their practices in time of
political peace; such as the contented and tranquil years while the
various components of the Labour Party in West Fife moved taxpayers’
money, Council taxpayers’ money, state allowances and grants, round
and round their various outposts to the satisfaction, and presumed
benefit, of all. Nothing wrong, was there? If they had seen anything
wrong they wouldn’t have done it. So why the myopia?
Experience has led many
of us to see Labour as the party distinguished particularly by the
repeated revelations of corruption at local level; not on any
spectacular criminal scale as from time to time has
been revealed in the Courts, but
rather the little
day-to-day squalors attending the award of contracts, permits, licences,
jobs — in any sort of dealings when the granting of favours might be
rewarded in due course.
We could compile quite a
dossier if we were to seek a nationwide submission of stories, but of
course such stories can quickly be brushed aside as hearsay. Some thirty years ago I wrote
to Secretary of State Ross inviting him to have some scrutiny made by
his officials of the then municipal administration in Dundee. His reply
was that if I had any evidence it should be submitted to the proper
authorities. To my reply that the purpose of an inquiry was to expose
facts hidden from the outside world, he made no further response. In due
course, but some years later, one (only one) local power-broker was
convicted, and a new Labour regime, driven by the dynamo of Mr Galloway,
ousted the offending generation, and has claimed applause for doing so
ever since. Meantime the working life of an SNP Councillor, who defied
attempted bribery and intimidation, was ruined by punitive and vengefull blacklisting.
And yet I speak to an old
friend of great intelligence and experience, and he smiles as I remember
these events, and says, "And still I vote for them".
For many people Labour is
just the team of choice; the team of the locality, the school, the
church, the clubs, just part of their
background. Their loyalty is about affectionate identification. But with
more critical persons, like my friend, support is granted because of
the myths and memories of the Labour tradition.
Once upon a time Labour
acted as the agent and defender, in word and deed, of all who were
economically dependent, and who were thus (employers being what they
were) frequently downtrodden and exploited. For at least two generations
Labour produced champions for underdogs everywhere; and these champions
were distinguished by austere and selfless lifestyles. Their modern
successors, frequently very different in their deportment, still posture
around in the old heroic colours.
It is this ancestral
virtue that gives Labour such a good conceit of itself; and it is that
conceit that, we are told, made Donald Dewar regard all opponents of
Labour as being defective in virtue.
There is too the
self-satisfaction which is widely shared on the Left, that they are
scientific in their politics; they are trained in their studies, and
they have the holy books to refer to, while lesser mortals are acting on
the imperfect advice of their consciences and their judgment.
So somewhere in their
collective self-assessment Labour can claim, and can offer to all who
join them, this comforting notion of moral and intellectual superiority,
which will be cited as a counter to Mr McLeish’s office accounts.
|
