A Spectator's Notebook

The French have a saying that to govern is to foresee. By this standard we have no governors. Other essential qualities in any Cabinet are sensitive political antennae and administrative ability. But there is no member of the present administration with even the rudiments of such antennae, and administrative ability is confined to a small minority. What our rulers do possess is charm — a quality that has received far too little attention. It is impossible to imagine men more charming than Mr William Whitelaw, Lord Carrington, Mr Robert Carr or Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Mr Barber is almost in the same class and from all accounts so are Mr Prior, Mr Boardman and Sir Peter Rawlinson. Mr Heseltine would fit into the same category if he were not so obviously conscious of his good looks. Sir John Eden and Mr Chataway fit into a slightly less glamorous group, perhaps because their inadequacy is all too obvious. In fact, this Heath administration for charm outshines all its predecessors of this century and quite possibly would come out on top in comparison with administrations of an even earlier period.

Of course one has to bear in mind that it is most difficult to be both effective and charming. When an effective minister gets to work he is bound to tread on some toes and create some enemies. It was said, I think by Asquith, that a Prime Minister must be a good butcher. This is a quality sadly lacking in Mr Heath and Mr Wilson. If you accumulate round you a group of friends — and such nice men too — it is agony to tell them they are no good and must go. So they linger on. The more difficult members of the party such as Mr Enoch Powell and Sir Christopher Soames would be easy to drop but then for largely personal reasons they were not invited in the first place.

'Nice chappery,

But though 'Nice Chappery' can be seen rampant in the present administration, the same factor has been at work in our national affairs for a long time. To take only prime ministers, Anthony Eden was the most attractive young politician of his day. I remember looking down on the House of Commons in the early 'thirties and the one figure you couldn't miss was Eden — in facial good looks, dress, and movement he stood out from the common herd. I imagine it was these qualities that led Baldwin to pick him out for early promotion. He was never a man who had any following among his contemporaries. I knew him slightly in his Oxford days and he showed no signs — then or later — of ministerial, let alone prime ministerial, temper. Whatever his defects were, he was a charming and highly intelligent man promoted by his social gifts far above his ceiling.

In a quite different genre ,,we had Stanley Baldwin, Honest Stan was his image. An uncle of mine sat on the back benches beside him for seven years without noticing anything remarkable about him. It is said that the family trustees were so little impressed by him that they wouldn't allow him to run the family iron works. Instead he was made vice-chairman and told to stay away. While Heath looks for charm in his ministers, Baldwin looked for Old Harrovians, men who had been educated in a public school at that time in steep decline. Perhaps he felt he supplied an adequate quota of charm in his own person. His image was that of the English country gentleman, slow, stupid perhaps, but sound, and above all, honest.

From what I can remember and from much that I have read, I would suppose this image was almost entirely false — he was not particularly honest in his politics, nor stupid where his political self-interest was concerned. As our most powerful political figure between the wars he must, however, bear a major share of the responsibility for the poor performance of this country in those years. It was a period of stagnation in some areas and decline in others and this may well seem to the future historian to be the contribution of Baldwin to our affairs.

To take one last example one could cite A. J. Balfour, Prime Minister for five years at the beginning of the century. His promotion depended on his irresistible charm, his uncle Lord Salisbury (his predecessor in No. 10) and his record of repression as Chief Secretary in Ireland in the previous century. His idea of governing a great country was to stroll down to his office in mid-morning and spend the afternoon, when possible, playing golf. It is hardly surprising that with all his charm he had led his party to catastrophe in 1906. I heard him speak, though I never met him, but could not discern the charm. An uncle who served with him in the Foreign Office used to say that his other-wordly charm concealed a ruthless search for his own political selfinterest. He was prominent on the political stage for nearly forty-five years but it would be difficult to name any constructive achievement for which he was responsible.

Pity the businessman

This may not be a plea to bring tears'to the eyes of the public, but perhaps it ought. The greatness of a modern state depends on its industrial power. The mistake Eden made at the time of the Suez fiasco was to suppose that Nasser was somehow the equivalent of Hitler who commanded the greatest industrial machine outside the United States. In the last century our own was for a time the greatest in the world and at all times — with Germany and the United States — one of the three greatest. Our political power 100 years ago

Th Spece tator January 12, 1974 depended on our industrial power and it is this which we. have let slip in the last fifty years.

In part we have increased out of proportion

the percentage of our national income devoted to personal consumption and, cons

picuously unlike the Russians, have been unwilling to curb our personal expenditure with a view to building up the industrial and mill' tary power of our country.

In a mixed society such as ours the inventiveness and dynamism of our economic life depends on the enterprise and efficiency Of cur businessmen. And in the business work' it is industry and above all, heavy industry that matters most. While we have been protesting that the old industries of the northern counties are dying and must be replaced bY other younger enterprises, the Japanese have been building up an immensely successful industrial machine based on steel and shiP" building, the very industries we think are on their way out. But to establish successful industries. profitability is all important. Men are in business for profit and unless the profit is suf' ficient will be unable to invest sufficient sums in new plant to maintain .their momentum. In industry — and particularly heavy industry — inflation is a deadly menace, for costs almost invariably out-run the agreed price by the time of delivery. Moreover the principle is apparently being established that the workers are entitled to a share of the profits of sue" cessful enterprise. Of this a conspicuous example is the composing room of the Financial Times where the lucky compositors draw about £10,000 a year each. So the entrepreneur now knows that if he embarks 0.11 a new venture, its failure will be entirely at MI expense. If it is a success he will be plundereu, by the trade unions of his employees an anything over will be subject to very heavy taxation. Nor is this all. To anyone in business With 'any serious ability it is possible to adapt t‘,e almost any circumstances provided the,.,Y remain the same. How can you successfulu play a game if the referee keeps onchanging„ the rules? But that is what successiv` governments in this country have been doing' Part of the reason for this lack of sympatil, by ministers for the problems of industrialist' may be due to the fact that I believe there i5 not one industrialist in the House of Cornmons. Peter Walker and John Davies arde salesmen by trade and Messrs Boardman arle Chataway, junior ministers for industry, ar respectively a publicity expert and an athlete Not only do our governments seem to have ° idea of the effects of their frequent U-turrts,' they seem to have little regard for the sanctit-e'' of contracts and this adds, yet one mod element of uncertainty. Having negotiate.„ terms for the exploitation of the gas and oil the North Sea, there is now loud clamour ale these contracts should be renegotiated, Wilo the commercial television contracts have bee revised and re-revised in the most carefree / fashion.

Penalty of success

More recently our rulers and legislators tlaYs: thought up new angles from which to hare the entrepreneur. We have demands that ti's activities of the multinational companie5 should be curbed. Their principal fault semill to have been that they are too successful.,,, see no reason why Shell, Unilever, Kocia Kelloggs, IBM and the rest should hang tilt heads. They have brought much employolev"e to this and many other countries, and aw f

made a major contribution to the amenities the modern world.

Is it surprising that, harassed and inhibited on every side, the investor and the ee; trepreneur tend to look overseas to aref.'e where enterprise is welcome and wile' 'profits' is not yet a dirty word?

Cecil Kiog