Good grief. The rich have deserted them, too

The most interesting news of the week was to be found in a table or list. Modern journalism seems to consist almost entirely either of interviews or of lists of one sort or another, with varying degrees of reliability. This one was made up of the 50 richest constituencies in the land. It was compiled by Barclays Bank, for what purpose, who can tell?

The criterion adopted was the proportion with an annual income of £60,000 or more. Property and other forms of wealth do not seem to have come into it. My own constituency of Islington South and Finsbury does not appear in the list (in some respects it remains one of the most deprived London boroughs). But Hammersmith and Battersea are in. So also are Kensington, Cities of London and Westminster, and Hampstead, which are all where one would expect them to be, in that order.

The short lesson to be learnt from the list is that it is discouraging news for the Tories, in a week when there has been talk of a "challenge" to Mr Iain Duncan Smith and of a new, "start-again" party based on the philosophy, libertarian both socially and economically, of that strange American writer Ayn Rand. Predictably, this has been dismissed as a silly-season story. But there is something in it all the same, not only because there are numerous young Conservatives who see themselves as the Gerald Kaufmans and the Roy Hattersleys of their generation – good men forever deprived of the opportunity of high office – but also because the Tories must clarify their attitude towards the coercive power of the state.

Mr Tony Blair, at any rate, has no doubt about where he stands. He makes such Old Labour figures as Ernest Bevin and Herbert Morrison look like crazed libertarians. But Margaret Thatcher left a muddled legacy. After more than a decade her heirs are still trying to interpret the will satisfactorily.

What is evident, however, is that the Tories have ceased to be the automatic choice of the rich, or even of the moderately well-off. Of the constituencies listed by Barclays, 10 are actually held by Labour: in descending order of alleged affluence, Hampstead, Hammersmith, Wimbledon, Finchley, Putney, Regent's Park, Leeds North-east, Battersea, St Albans and Bristol West. Five are held by the Liberal Democrats: Richmond, Sheffield Hallam (the place that aroused the most comment, of a surprised, metropolitan character), Twickenham, Guildford and Winchester.

In a further 10 rich constituencies the Conservatives failed to obtain half the vote at the last election, while the Liberal Democrat was second. Mr Duncan Smith cannot be sure of them: again in descending order of relative wealth, Maidenhead, Surrey South-west, Surrey Heath, Windsor, Woking, Tunbridge Wells, Wokingham, Aylesbury and Wealden.

Not even Mr Boris Johnson is safe at Henley. And Brentwood might still be vulnerable to a Liberal Democrat, for the jolly Mr Eric Pickles got in last time largely owing to the unsuccessful intervention of Mr Martin Bell as an independent.

This pattern presents a problem for Mr Duncan Smith. So also does it for Mr Charles Kennedy. The difference is that, with Mr Kennedy, it is what Mr Peter, now Lord, Walker once called one of the problems of success. For years now, from well before the time he became leader, his party has appeared before our admiring even if sceptical eyes as the party of high taxation. It has advertised its position, gloried in it, held it out for all to see as evidence of its own moral superiority.

At the last election there was, to be sure, an element of backsliding: the penny-on-the-tax for education trickled into the sand, while the promise to renationalise the railways was quietly forgotten. This would certainly have cost a lot. It would also have pleased the rich commuters of Richmond, Twickenham, Guildford and Winchester. But this omission did not prevent them from voting for the Liberal Democrat candidates in numbers sufficient to return them all to Westminster.

The rich tend to be high-minded. They can afford to be. As Alfred Doolittle says in Pygmalion on being rebuked for his lack of morals: "Can't afford them, Governor. Neither could you if you was as poor as me." Not so the citizens of Winchester, Guildford, Twickenham or Richmond; of those other wealthy constituencies which are now held by the Liberal Democrats; or of those others again which are held by Conservatives but are vulnerable to Mr Kennedy's party.

The greatest cause of the high-minded today is opposition to any war with Iraq. I am not suggesting that it is one to appeal solely or exclusively to the better-off citizens of London and the South-east. Those doing the fighting will still be sons of Scotland and Wales, of West Bromwich, Salford and Sunderland. But equally there is little doubt that opposition will be strongest – or at its most articulate – in the constituencies I have already mentioned, together with other Liberal Democrat seats which, perhaps curiously, do not appear in the rich list such as Bath and Oxford West.

Mr Kennedy has an opportunity which is denied to Mr Duncan Smith. He can attack the Government – assuming that Mr Blair is not restrained by Mr Gordon Brown, Mr Robin Cook, Ms Clare Short and assorted backbenchers led by Mr Kaufman and Mr Chris Smith. Mr Duncan Smith's course can only be to urge Mr Blair forward. And Mr Kennedy has the most statesmanlike figure at his disposal in Mr Menzies Campbell, whose still athletic form is covered by acres of Savile Row suiting and Jermyn Street haberdashery and who looks more ministerial than any member of the Cabinet except possibly Mr Brown.

Mr Kennedy has a united party behind him, whereas Mr Blair has not. Nor does Mr Duncan Smith, or not entirely: for Mr John Gummer, Mr Douglas Hogg and Sir Peter Tapsell are all formidable by the standards of today. We may be approaching a time when their party is overtaken by the Liberal Democrats.

I am now off for a few weeks, part of which I hope to occupy studying the effects of the Common Agricultural Policy in provincial France. I shall, God willing, be back for the Liberal Democrat Conference, which I still think of as the Liberal Assembly. This used to provide a gentle and more or less civilised introduction to the political year lying ahead; as, indeed, its successor still does. This year it is being held at Brighton, an easy place to get to – and to get away from as well.