Political Commentary

Perils of Jay-walking

John Grigg

The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary both have naval connections — Mr Callaghan as a former lieutenant RN, Dr Owen as MP for Plymouth (Devonport) — and in their choice of Peter Jay as the next ambassador in Washington they may have been influenced by a famous maxim of Admiral Lord Fisher, that favouritism is the secret of efficiency.

Dr Owen is a favourite of Peter Jay. He was given the Foreign Office — Mr Callaghan's boldest and most unorthodox appointment. Peter Jay is a favourite of Dr Owen. He is given the Washington embassy — an 'imaginative' choice. Early in the century people referred to the Tory establishment as the Hotel Cecil, because of the favour shown to Lord Salisbury's relations. There may soon be talk of the Hotel Callaghan.

Objectively, there is much to be said for Lord Fisher's maxim. Leaders in politics, business or other civilian pursuits, no less than in the armed forces, are likely to be better served by subordinates whom they know well, and who are specially beholden to them, than by strangers unsuited to their ways. Even nepotism (which is favouritism compounded by kinship) has the advantage that it puts family solidarity and mutual trust at the service of the state.

Moreover, it is plainly true that an aptitude for every kind of art, craft or trade tends to run in families, for obvious reasons of heredity and environment: Bachs or Benns — the principle is the same. There are as many political dynasties on the left as on the right, with the important difference that on the left dynasticism is not meant to exist whereas on the right it is accepted as a fact of life.

That difference has a crucial bearing', of course, upon whether or not it was wise of Mr Callaghan to approve the selection of his son-in-law for one of the most coveted jobs in the Crown's gift. But apart from the political implications at home (of which more anon), is the appointment itself justified? Should Sir Peter Ramsbotham have been removed from the post after only three years, and is Mr Jay the best possible choice for it?

Sir Peter's merits are now common knowledge. That, at least, is a bonus accruing to him from the circumstances of his removal. But before the row blew up and he became a household name, I for one had heard from many sources, British and American, that we were extremely lucky to have such a skilful and popular man in Washington. Even without political intervention, it is a bad habit in our Diplomatic Service that people who are doing well in jobs are moved on too quickly. When the right person happens to be in the right place at the right time, why not leave hitn there until retirement age (which is anyway too rigidly enforced)?

Since the last war there have been only four French ambassadors in London, while there have been twice that number of British ambassadors in Paris. Few would claim that our interests have benefited from the frequency of change, or that French interests have suffered from the infrequency. It takes time for someone to get properly established as head of a mission abroad, and it must surely be wrong to sacrifice the advantages of contacts made and confidence won. Sir Peter is an outstanding case in point. It seems madness that he was not given an extension, having achieved so much in three years.

Incidentally, if he were a litigious character he might have put the cat among the pigeons by suing the Evening Standard and the Evening News for libel. Those allegedly involved in the 'smear', from the Prime Minister downwards, would then have had .to testify on oath. As it is, he and Mr Jay have lavished compliments upon each other, he has accepted the governorship of Bermuda, and it is a pretty safe bet that his name will appear high up in the Birthday Honours list.

Mr Jay is an exceptionally clever man who knows America well and likes it so much that he has even spoken of emigrating there. He is thoroughly articulate and an experienced television performer. Despite his cleverness, and the fact that he is by no means unaware of it himself, he has many friends. His wife is charming and intelligent and should be a successful ambassadress. So far so good.

The doubt concerns his fitness for diplomacy. It is not enough for an ambassador to be liked as an acquired taste; he has to be immediately congenial to people who only meet him for a few minutes and with whom he has little or nothing in common. Above all, he must effectively expound not his own views, but the views of HM Government. This means that he must either have no strong views of his own, or must keep them to himself while devoting all his eloquence and persuasiveness to arguing cases with which he may not agree.

Mr Jay has very strong views of his own and some of them are completely opposed to British state policy. He is anti-Concorde, anti-Common Market, an extreme monetarist and a pessimist about Britain's chances of recovery. Apart from race, his opinions are close to those of Enoch Powell (who would not, however, seem a natural choice for the Washington or any other embassy).

The previous nepotistic appointment to Washington was that of Lord Harlech,

but it should not be regarded as an encouraging precedent for the appointment of Mr Jay. Lord Harlech was not MrMacmillan's son-in-law, but his son's brother-in-law — which is only a minor difference. But several other differences are vital. He was (and is) diplomatic by temperament, he had been serving as a minister in the Foreign Office, he was a whole-hearted exponent of the Macmillan government's policies and, above all, he was a personal friend of President Kennedy. Dr Owen's statement, issued before he left for Saudi Arabia (where nepotism is better appreciated than in the Parliamentary Labour Party), could not claim that Mr Jay was a personal friend of President Carter, but only that he would 'establish an easy and informal relationship with many of the people of his own generation who have prominent positions in the new American Administration'. That is not the same thing at all — and anyway nonsense. (`Generation talking to generation' is as big a myth as 'left talking to left'.) All in all, Dr Owen and Mr Callaghan have committed a tremendous and reverberating blunder. The Prime Minister believes, no doubt sincerely, that the only objection to Mr Jay was his relationshin to himself, and that in the absence of any other objection he could not veto the appointment. But it is hard for anybodY to think clearly when strong personal emotions are involved, and the world must judge that the Prime Minister would have seen other objections if Mr Jay had not been his son-in-law.

That in itself, however, should have seemed a decisive objection, granted the ethos of the Labour Party. The apPaint' ment was bound to be a shock to Labour people of all denominations, and iriMe especially to right-wingers, who feel discredited and let down. It raises not only the spectre of nepotism, but also in 3 most acute form that of elitism, because Mr Jay — Winchester, Christ Church, The Times, and with a daughter at an expel.'" sive private school — is a caricature elitist. Even now one has to pinch oneself to he ' sure it is not a dream.

It is most desirable that the Labour Party should become less crudely egalitarian and should accept the neces

sity for making the best use of, and giving adequate recognition and reward to, nut; standing talent. But this long-awaitea. evolution of thought and sentiment will be delayed rather than promoted by the Jay appointment.