A letter to Mr Geoffrey Tucker

THE TORIES GEORGE HUTCHINSON

George Hutchinson was the Conservative party's head of publicity from 1961 to 1964.

Dear Geoffrey, Though I have already sent you my good wishes for success in your new if temporary role as Director of Publicity at Conservative Central Office, my friends have suggested that I should now put forward a few observations from my own experience of this rather deli- cate—and latterly troublesome—appointment.

First, the function itself. We would agree, I am sure, that your business is the dissemination of information: genuine information, by defini- tion accurate and truthful, however timely and attractive in presentation. But there is more to honesty in politics than simply holler- ing the truth as you know it, hoping that the • community will hear, understand and accept it. Political parties must first convince those who will in effect convince the public for them. Pre- eminently, they must convince the political journalists, in and out of the parliamentary lobby (in the term `political journalists' I natur- ally include editors and leader writers). Without their interest and sympathy a party cannot pros- per and is finally sunk.

No amount of paid-for advertising could conceivably offset an overwhelmingly critical press. Nor could direct appeals to the elector- ate by television and radio, if only because party political broadcasts are comparatively few and infrequent in the calendar. By their very nature the `party politicals' aren't of much value anyhow, and should probably be scrapped. The current affairs programmes on sound radio and television are, of course, a very different and more profitable proposition, and I know that you are alert to the opportunities. Impor- tant though they are, however, the results for the party publicist are still less predictable than what the press, in all its size and variety, can offer.

But the watchword is trust. The political journalists have to trust you and you have to trust them—for much of what you say to them you will say not 'on the record' but on so-called lobby terms. In other words, you will be asking them to make use of your information or guid- ance on their own responsibility, without ascrib- ing it to you. This is no light obligation on either side. Belonging as you do to the advertising world, you have not yet met all the political journalists. When you come to know them I hope that you will find their company as con- genial as I did.

Of course, there are plenty of opinion-formers besides journalists. The support of writers who are not principally journalists is important to any political party. Established figures in show business can be very influential. All these, along with the academic world. you will undoubtedly wish to cherish, ensuring that they meet leading members of the party from time to time and are listened to with attention whenever they have anything to say.

Listening to other people's opinions, even when they are dull or disagreeable, may be one of the hardships of public life, but it is also one of the courtesies which politicians neglect at their peril. A tremendous amount of goodwill can be won by courtesy alone, in all its forms and manifestations. I remember Mr Macmil- lan and Lady Dorothy, when they were together at No. 10, as perfect exemplars of good man- ners. Unless the most urgent official business prevented it, or he was really unwell, Mr Mac- millan never failed to keep an engagement, even a minor one, awkward or inconvenient though it might be for him. (`After all,' he would say, 'it's important to the people who asked me.') Lord Blakenham, as chairman of the party, was equally punctilious, and I have never known anyone more prompt in sending off his 'thank you' letters, shoals of them, even for the most modest hospitality or attention. You will find, sad to say, that not all your flock are as good as this. You will have to prod and prompt the laggards.

While it is easy enough to prescribe the exer- cise of courtesy and patience, it isn't always easy to observe these virtues in your new post, however. For you will be exposed to many pressures and a fair amount of nonsense from know-alls who believe that they alone under- stand how best to promote the Conservative interest.

In my own time I found, whenever the party organisation or leadership were under attack, that the Home Counties, especially Surrey, pro- duced the crudest and most boorish, brazen and personally offensive of our critics. One of the most unpleasant encounters of my working life was with a group of these zealots who, almost certainly egged on by their own odious MP, called at Central Office to protest about the party's failure to inflame the public with en- thusiasm. The Prime Minister, Mr Macmillan, was no good, they said. Nor was Mr Macleod, then joint chairman of the party. Nor was his partner Lord Poole. Nor was Lord Aldington, the chairmen's special assistant. Nor were the vice-chairmen, whose names they couldn't bring to mind. Nor was I. We were a pack of incom- petents and they wanted to know, in some de- tail, just what we were doing with the party's money—which they themselves, it appeared, had done more than anyone else to raise. Though I would never call you ruthless, you are a man of robust make-up and you will know how to handle this sort of thing.

Early on, you will be troubled, I dare say, by Mr Heath's regrettable lack of personal popularity with the electorate. To my mind, all too many people in the constituency associa- tions are fretting themselves unnecessarily about his rating in the opinion polls. Mr Heath's stock will rise before you are much older. But the improvement might be accelerated if you could persuade him to economise in two spheres of activity.

His speeches outside Parliament would, 1 suggest, take on a greater national importance and interest the public much more if he made fewer of them. He could—and, as I think, should—do this without cutting down on his numerous visits to the constituencies. The party faithful in Oldham or Exeter or wherever don't always need a speech from him, you know. If he simply turned up at a reception and shook hands with them as he moved around in con- versation they would go home happy. Probably happier than they would after a speech, for many more of them would actually have met him. And having met him, liked him.

Mr Heath could also spare himself a little in public postures of the so-called human interest variety. Myself, I could do without all those pictures of him standing, pint in hand, outside the Tartar Frigate at Broadstairs, or in his boat, even when the thing is capsizing or he is hauling in some implausible quantity of codfish. This isn't to say that you shoul.i stop him sailing —far from it. But perhaps he could manage to enjoy his beer and his boat more privately by well-timed avoiding action, so that in his leisure he isn't for ever exposed to the photo- graphers. A certain gravity, when it is in charac- ter, is surely something to be encouraged— especially now, when gimmickry and clowning have become part of the stock in trade of Downing Street and there is no longer any style in government.

Of the many hazards ahead of you, one is Mr Duncan Sandys. How often you will be confronted, perhaps late at night, by yet another statement from Mr Sandys, probably at vari- ance with party policy, nobody can tell. But it will not be an infrequent experience: that much is certain. You must never let it unnerve you. And on no account, if I may say so, must Mr Sandys be allowed to stampede Mr Heath into some counter-statement, even in similar terms. Mr Sandys speaks for himself, at his own con- venience. There is no reason why he should become a sort of pacemaker for the leader of the party.

With the support of his colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet, and notably Sir Alec, Mr Heath has set his face against the philosophy of Instant opposition' to everything. Most people, I should judge, think this sensible and right. What, then, are we to make of Mr Peter Walker? I believe myself, .that such standing as Mrs Barbara Castle enjoys with the public is due partly to Mr Walker's antics as the shadow Minister of Transport. His incessant harrying of Mrs Castle, his ready condemnation of every single thing that she did as Minister of Trans- port, not just the highly contentious •Bill that she has left behind her, and his everlasting flow of censorious speeches and prepared state- ments have, in my opinion, done more for Mrs Castle and the Labour government than they have for the Tory party. To the lobby journalists, Peter Walker has .become a bit of a bore. To such a large-scale local

authority as the Tory-controlled Greater Lon- don Council, with immense responsibilities in Mr Walker's field, he has become, on occasion, a headache. Perhaps you could persuade him to ease up, if only in his own interest.

A more exhilarating hazard is Mr Randolph Churchill, and I bring him in last in order to end on a happy note. Mr Churchill may impor- tune you, in that he is liable to ring you from Stour, often late at night if not in the small hours of the morning, with difficult or seem- ingly impossible requests for information. You should never disregard what he has to say. Randolph should always be humoured, if only because he will badger you until you give him an answer. But there is an even better reason for prompt and speedy attention to his in- quiries. You will usually find that you learn something from them, for Randolph is more often than not a jump ahead of the game. He is a good judge of the passing scene, and as a source of information—when he feels like im- parting it—he can be very helpful to you. He is also the truest of friends.

And in politics nobody can ever have too many friends.

Yours ever, George.