Spectator's Notebook

SUPPOSE President Johnson has his political

I

reasons for deciding to extend the bombing in Vietnam at this moment. It cannot surely have been that he calculated that the bombing of a few oil-storage tanks would make much difference militarily, however accurately it might be done. But it can be argued that he is deter- mined to show that there is no weakening of the administration's resolution, despite the growing criticism in America itself, and that the one thing he cannot be called is indecisive. Falsely, I think; the chief effect of Wednesday's action is bound to be to increase the risk of the war spreading beyond the frontiers of Vietnam still further. The possible destruction of a few oil tanks is hardly a notable enough military aim to make this risk worthwhile.

I suppose Mr Wilson, too, had his political reasons for his statement of dissocation, but, none the less, he was right. He has not, of course, gone very far and this mild note of dissent is unlikely to have much effect on US policy. We may hope, however, that this is the beginning of the end of the Government's tortuous position, best outlined by Mr Healey, where it can sup- port US bombing in general, can profess anxiety to sell the Americans arms and even greater anxiety that these arms should not be used in Vietnam. We may hope that debate may return to a basic discussion of whether or not the British government should support the broad lines of America's Vietnam policy.

Oliver Asks for Less

Transport House has done well to secure the services of my old friend Oliver Stutchbury as 'full-time' unpaid adviser on fund raising. Some years ago, when he was attempting to enter Parliament in the Conservative cause, he astonished the selection committee before whom he was appearing by declaiming at the top of his powerful voice: 'Our task is to turn T-O-R-Y into V-/-C-T-O-R-Y.' He had been advised by a well-known right-wing Conservative MP that this would prove an infallible means of securing adoption. Alas, it didn't. But his conversion, to the Labour movement was caused less by reac- tion against this embarrassing experience than by his passionate desire to see the end of all inherited wealth—which is rather bad luck on hi; five small children, since in addition to the -..abstantial family estates near Eastbourne, Oliver 1;is made a great deal of money in the unit trust movement in the City.

However, if he disapproves of inheriting money, he approves—with equal passion—Of

making money; and the highest praise he can bestow on anyone is to describe him as a 'creator of wealth.' Capitalism, indeed, has no more vigorous champion : in two letters to the SPECTATOR earlier this year he roundly advocated dearer money and declared `in my vision of the future the workers will be identical with the rentiers.' Whether this is also the Labour party's vision remains to be seen; but one thing is clear: within three years Oliver will either be running Transport House or else the most force- ful and original mind I know—ex-Tory, ex- lawyer. ex-professional philosopher, ex-unit trust managing director—will be seeking yet another field to conquer.

Half the Kingdom I don't normally go in for. competitions, but if the prize money is good enough I'm liable to be tempted. And 'half the kingdom'—however imprecise the form of expression—is such an exceptional offer that I can't resist having a go. This was, of course, the reward advertised by the Prime Minister at a parliamentary press gallery lunch a few weeks ago. I must confess to some unworthy doubt as to how far 'half the kingdom' is in the Prime Minister's gift to bestow, but no doubt he cleared it with the Palace first. Anyhow, these were Mr Wilson's precise words: 'Nearly everything one would wish to propose is illegal by either GATT or EFTA or both. But we have not given up hope. . . If there is an export incentive available and we have not thought about it, the reward to its inventor might well go up to half the kingdom.'

So here goes. The key is the value-added tax which, as every schoolboy knows, can be re- mitted on exports without infringing GATT or any other rules. The TVA, however, amounts in practice (if capital expenditures are untaxed as a form of investment incentive) to a tax on payrolls plus profits, and the Richardson Com- mittee objected that, by taxing payrolls, industrial costs would be pushed up and the whole benefit to exporters cancelled out. Very well, then: couple, say, a 10 per cent TVA with a 10 per cent payroll subsidy all round. There would be no net adverse effect (according to the Richardson doctrine) on industrial costs, non-exporters would in effect have to pay a 10 per cent profits tax, and exporters would get the substantial incentive of a 10 per cent payroll subsidy.

The only possible snag is that a payroll subsidy might itself be contrary to GATT and all that. But if this is so, then the Government's own Selective Employment Payments Bill is illegal,

for the purpose of this is nothing other than to provide a crude form of payroll subsidy to an arbitrary selection of firms and industries. And can't believe that Mr Callaghan would do any- thing improper, like fudging Hansard after he's been found out, or contravening GATT. Nor, equally, will I believe it if Mr Wilson tries to make out that the Government itself has already 'thought about' my proposal. For if so, why on earth didn't it introduce it instead of the absurd Selective Employment Tax? A cheque for half the kingdom should be sent to me, cio the SPECTATOR, 99 Gower Street, WC1. Registered post, please.

Talking Picture

I'm ashamed to admit that I had never heard a single note by the eighteenth-century Belgian (described in the programme as French) composer Andre Modeste Grary until last Monday. My ignorance was ended by a sparkling performance of Le Tableau Parham at the Courtauld Institute's splendid Adam house in Portman Square, in aid of the Courtauld Travelling Scholarships Fund: I can't imagine a pleasanter way of being dunned by a good if not compelling cause. I mention all this by way of paying tribute to the performers, Mr Hugh Vickers's Opera da Camera group, who succeeded in achieving a quite delightful blend of professional skill and amateur (in the best sense) enthusiasm. Long may they prosper.

Europhobe

Mr Denis Healey has long been known as a determined opponent of Britain's entry into the Common Market (a fact which is all of a piece with his dedication to the East of Suez role), so his deplorable anti-French remarks over the weekend hardly came as a surprise. But if his subsequent apology in the House for being so foolish as to say on the record what he nor- mally says off the record has removed a threatened impediment to the forthcoming London visit of the French Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, the matter cannot end there. If the Wilson administration is really in earnest about joining the Community—and Mr Thom- son's latest speech can hardly indicate anything else—it must be well aware that improved Anglo- French understanding is the key to the success of this project. And it is difficult to see how any such improvement can occur so long as Mr Healey continues to occupy what is in effect a key external post. Nor need there be any problem about a replacement. Lord Chalfont is sitting there in the Foreign Office, waiting to be more fully employed. He should wait no longer.

Gower Street News

Starting this week, John Wells deserts the press to take over the Afterthought column from Alan Brien. I'm delighted to be able to confirm that his successor as SPECTATOR press columnist will be Donald McLachlan. until recently editor of the Sunday Telegraph. Donald. however, has to spend the summer months tracking down foreign material for the book he's writing on British naval intelligence, and won't be joining us until September: so for the next two months, for a strictly limited summer season only. we've asked David Frost to keep an eye. on Fleet Street for us. His first article appears in this issue. Finally, I must record that my colleague Nicholas Davenport has agreed to sit on the Government's new committee to look into the future of pro- fessional soccer. I must say I never realised we had a football expert in the house. I don't think Nicholas did, either.

NIGEL LAWSON