FUNNY, isn鈥檛 it, how fish suddenly seem so important to politicians the
moment an election rears its head. Probably less than 5 per cent of voters in
industrialised countries make their living by catching, shipping or selling the
things. But fish are, for some reason, an irresistible political football. Just
look, if you can bear it, at Britain鈥檚 recent election campaign.
First, there was the governing Conservative Party vilifying the efforts of
the European Union to impose some restraint on fishing before every stock in EU
waters disappears. In April, at the height of the election campaign, Tony
Baldry, then the fisheries minister, voted against a cut of 30 per cent in
Europe鈥檚 catch over five years鈥攅ven though this is less than what
scientists say is needed to save the stocks. France鈥攚hich, coincidentally,
has called an election鈥攐pposed the cut as well. The two were overruled by
the other ministers. Hooray for majority voting, at least if you鈥檙e a European
fish.
Baldry vowed he would ignore the ruling, even though he had no right to do
so. He complainedloudly about the European deal that allows Spanish vessels into
British waters鈥攏ever mind that the British sold those rights to the
Spanish, and never mind that the deal has nothing to do with cuts in the catch.
He called the vote 鈥渦nbridled Euro-federalism鈥濃�攏ever mind that during the
previous election campaign, the Conservatives trumpeted their involvement in the
same fisheries plan as an example of the good deal Britain was able to strike in
Europe. A sound bite is a sound bite, after all.
Advertisement
The Labour Party rejoined by saying even Mickey Mouse could have got a better
deal for British fishermen than Baldry. But what did it mean by a 鈥渂etter鈥� deal?
One that would have taken the pressure off Britain鈥檚 plummeting fish stocks? One
that would have done the only sensible thing鈥攑aid Europe鈥檚 fishermen not
to fish until stocks recover?
Not a bit of it. A better deal, during an election campaign, means more
access to fish by the fishing fleet. Never mind the fish. They don鈥檛 vote.
One might imagine this to be a quirk of British electoral politics, obsessed
as it is with Britain鈥檚 ambivalent role in Europe. But countries which have only
themselves to blame (hard as they might try to pass the buck to, again, the
hapless Spanish) have this problem, too. I am thinking here, of course, of
Canada, which after decades of mismanagement was finally forced in 1993 to shut
down the Grand Banks cod fishery to allow it to recover.
The cod born since that fishing ban have not yet lived long enough to reach
catchable size. But in April, Canada reopened the east coast cod fishery (see
This Week, 26 April, p 6). And sure enough, a couple of weeks later, Ottawa
called a general election for June. The height of the fishing season, by the
way.
But it still doesn鈥檛 make sense. There simply are not enough people who
depend on fishing to make a real difference to the vote. If every voter on the
Atlantic coast of Canada opposed the government鈥攁nd this is a region that
recently returned a provincial government without a single opposition
member鈥攖he ruling Liberals would still probably win.
So why do politicians pick on fish? After a few beers, fisheries scientists
have their theories. Some say it is precisely because so few people are involved
in fisheries, and hence, few know the real story. So if you鈥檙e a politician
wooing landlubbers, making wild macho statements about fish is a cost-free
way to look like you鈥檙e doing something鈥攕tanding up to the evil forces of
Brussels, say, or helping poor jobless Newfoundlanders.
Others say that fishermen have a certain sex appeal. After all, they are the
last great hunter-gatherers, risking their lives, pitting themselves against the
wind, the waves, and the wily fish. It doesn鈥檛 look very sexy for politicians to
go to these heroic types and say, 鈥淟ook lads, there have to be a lot fewer of
you鈥�. We鈥檙e going to pay you to burn half your boats, and to find jobs in some
other industry鈥攅ven though this is what every fisheries scientist on both
sides of the Atlantic is recommending.
No, what looks sexy is going out there and getting more fish for 鈥渙ur boys鈥�,
and damn the foreigners. And in Britain, until recently, it was damn the
scientists as well. Baldry once protested on television, when asked how he could
justify opposing the catch cuts demanded by scientists: 鈥淥h well, if we listened
to everything scientists say, we would never catch any fish.鈥�
Breathtaking. Dare one now hope for something better?
Prime Minister Tony Blair has just given Jack Cunningham overall
responsibility for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The new
secretary of state, who has a PhD in chemistry, is a double rarity. Not only is
he a science graduate, he is also a Labour MP with previous government
experience.
Will he, or his fisheries minister Elliot Morley鈥攁 bachelor of
education but not unacquainted with science鈥攂e like ministers before them,
and sit around a table in Brussels throwing the scientific advice overboard in
exchange for a bigger cut of the diminishing fish pie? Or will they remember
that a sound bite may catch voters, but it doesn鈥檛 catch fish. Especially if
there are none, or damn few, to catch in the first place.