TORY NOTE BOOK

Now that Mr Jenkins has managed to Make it again to the deputy leadership of the Labour party — against a substantial and indeed triumphal 126 left wing votes for Mr Foot, it is useful to note what TOry Ministers really think of him, especially as they are now counting on ten Jenkinsite absentions (including the historian himself), in any crucial division on the EEC. Mr Macleod could not stand him; Mr Maudling likes him; Mr Whitelaw Makes very funny jokes about him; and the Prime Minister is most brutal of all on the subject of Regency Roy.

Thinking in the tank

Brian Reading, the Prime Minister's economic adviser, is to join Lord Rothschild's think-tank, without losing his connection with No 10. Reading has had a remarkable career, being in turn an Oxford don, an economist at the Bank of England and Neddy, and a founder member of George Brown's DEA, before going to the Conservative Research Department and the service of Edward Heath. It is generally thought that he chose the Research I3epartment after the DEA because he felt it would be the best base from which to Propound his very distinctive economic ideas with some prospect of success — a listinct compliment to Tory economic thinking in opposition. He was the inspiration behind the 'at a stroke' statement, the only thing wrong with• Which was the delay in implementing it.

Rayner's triumph

Opinions on the Think Tank are very Mixed. It was an essential part of the Heath policy of submitting the planning. of the Whitehall bureaucracy to intensive critical review, and thereby bringing. the Civil Service mammoth under control. But, before the Think Tank got under way a Politically and (more formidable intellectually) group enjoyed a great triumph over the bureaucracy. This was Derek Rayner's study group on the integration of defence research, development and procurement, and the relationship between government and industry in this field. Rayner was the brightest of the Prime Minister's young businessmen, who advised him, before the election, on how to deal With the bureaperacy. The result of his investigations WO the setting up • of a special Defence 'Procurement Executive, under himself, which will handle relations between government departments and industry on all the main problems of

advanced science and technology in the future. Naturally, having themselves triumphed over traditional bureaucracy, the Defence Procurement Executive do not want to be interfered with by the Think Tank and, having a victory to their credit, may be able to protect themselves. The Think Tank, on the other hand, naturally feel that they must have an overview role, and must therefore overview Mr Rayner. among others.

Troubles ahead and behind

The rivalry between the Think Tank and the Procurement Executive will obviously provide a lot of fun in the future. The fun indeed has already started. The Government's initial move after the election, before making final decisions about the shape of the departmental and bureaucratic structure, was to set up a Ministry of Aviation Supply, to hold the line until the Rayner group reported. There was a bitter row between the Think Tank and Rayner over whether Aviation Supply should survive as a separate Ministry, go into the Ministry of Defence, or be absorbed, with its Minister, Mr Frederick Corfield, in the Department of Trade and Industry. The last — which was Rayner's — decision was adopted.

Rayner's remarkable facility for being a whizz kid and, at the same time, being diplomatic and agreeable to ministers and civil servants alike was of great importance in his victory. Lord Rothschild — who wanted Aviation Supply to go into the Department of Defence — does not have that kind of charm; and that was in

part why one of the ministers involved in the argument was so brutal about the first Think Tank report on the subject: "It was," he said, "of a standard of literacy lower than would be required to pass the old School Certificate."

Other rivalries

I have a good deal of sympathy with the traditional point of view. Last week I had an opportunity to be traditional and to be, in my turn, sympathised with, when I spoke at the Cambridge Union against the motion 'That this House refuses to fight for Queen and Country.' The motion was defeated by seventy-six votes. As we victors departed for drinks in a glow of patriotic euphoria I discovered that, ages after I had departed Cambridge, the Union Society was still fighting against a takeover by the unspeakable Cambridge Student Union — a democractic gathering of malcontents of various kinds who want a merger with the Union which will give them control over the Union building while the debating society itself is reduced to being a chat show having first call on the chamber twice a week. This destroys the whole concept of the Union as an involved, intelligent, political society with premises in which general debate and informal talk about matters of moment can take place in an agreeable social climate. If the CSU had their way Union dinners would become crusts, debates exercises in radical paranoia, and social life yet another extension of the activities of Lefty brainwashers.

Fortunately, a stout defensive action is being fought by the Union President, the delightful Miss Arianna Stassinopoulos who, in a circular being sent out to Union members asking their advice on what should be done, is able to mention both the site value of the Union building — over £300,000 — on which the CSU would like to get their hands, and the present healthy bank balance of the Union Society. A thriving society needs no mergers; it is the declining and boring CSU that wants the merger — in order to get a foothold in something that has proved its value.

Whose ignorance?

Last month the Reading Young Conservatives did a public opinion survey on the Common Market, It showed, inter a/ia, that the public were substantially opposed; that Tories were likewise opposed; that people were seriously concerned over both the threat to sovereignty and the danger of a steeply increased cost of living. It also showed a strong desire for a referendum. Mr V. E. Baker, the Central Office area agent to whom the report of the survey was sent, replied to the organiser in a remarkable letter which included this strikingly honest statement: • I think the staggering fact was the appalling ignorance amongst so many people about the Common Market, which refutes the argument for a .-eferendum.'

I hope the Tories are not going to tell us, at the end of the life of this Parliament, that our ignorance is too appalling to allow us to vote in a general election.

Cato