DIARY ALAN WATKINS
The late Master of Emmanuel College, Edward Welbourne, used to maintain that the Jews and the Celts were responsible for most of the ills of this land. How much better off we should all be, he would say, if the English were allowed to run their own affairs. It has largely escaped comment that Mrs Margaret Thatcher has been brought low not by one but by two Welsh- men, Mr Michael Heseltine and Sir Geof- frey Howe. We Welsh are a funny lot, my father used to muse. I saw no reason to contradict him. We are neither as charming as the Irish nor as industrious as the Scots. We lack the disposition towards violence of the one and the tendency to ingratitude of the other. We incline to be easygoing, even indolent, until we are disturbed. But we have long memories and, as Mrs Thatcher — a puritan from the flatlands of the East — has discovered, we never forgive a slight. The other Welshman's vote of cen- sure is, however, likely to pull Mrs Thatch- er up again. Perhaps this is its purpose. If so, I think Mr Neil Kinnock is being too cunning by half.
Lord St John of Fawsley was on News- night lamenting the unconstitutionality of the Conservative election for leader — and for Prime Minister. The following Prime Ministers of this century assumed office while their party or a coalition was in power: Balfour, 1902; Asquith, 1908; Lloyd George, 1916; Bonar Law, 1922; Baldwin, 1923; Chamberlain, 1937; Chur- chill, 1940; Eden, 1955; Macmillan, 1957; Home, 1963; and Callaghan, 1976. Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Churchill, Macmillan and, arguably, Eden took over from prede- cessors who had been forced out. Only Lord Callaghan was elected by his party, though even A. J. Balfour took the precau- tion of being made leader by both MPs and peers. Andrew Bonar Law is more often cited as the precedent. He refused to accept the Queen's commission till he had been made leader of the party. Lord St John has always taken exception to initial election in these circumstances, as if some person was being foisted on a reluctant sovereign. In his fine edition of Bagehot's works he criticises the Parliamentary Labour Party's 1957 declaration of elective principle. This was put into effect in 1976 without any fuss. But tough Mr Jeremy Paxman accepted Lord St John's question- able assertions without contradiction.
Iwas making one of my rare appear- ances on the same programme but on a different night, with Mr Charles Moore, deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph. Also doing a turn before ours were Mr Peter Lilley, Mr Norman Tebbit and Mr George Younger, Thatcher's men all. I was less concerned with the evident imbalance of the show than with the absence of any proper drink in the hospitality room after- wards. There was beer, mineral water and some rather classy-looking Duboeuf beau- jolais, but no strong spirits. I love wine but do not want to drink it at half past 11 at night, having emerged from a strenuous encounter with Miss Francine Stock. In these conditions I prefer whisky-and-soda. None was to be had, though a young man kindly tried to get some. I was presenting The Week in Westminster during the mid- 1970s when the ban on spirits in the hospitality room was introduced. It was to impress the politicians with the Corpora- tion's penury while it was conducting one of its periodic campaigns for an increase in the licence fee. The other factor was that in this era good order and broadcasting disci- pline broke down. The whole production staff considered themselves entitled to raid the drinks cabinet. Girl researchers, having been at the gin, were rolling around like City secretaries on Christmas Eve.
he same social tendency was responsi- ble for the change in the party conferences (how remote this year's now seems). It is often asserted that the Brighton bomb of 1984 terminated that happy age when humble party workers were able to mingle with the mighty. This is so only on the understanding that the period began in 1967. It is possible to date the change precisely because that was the year the Young Liberals invaded the Grand Hotel, Brighton. They twigged that, for the price of a drink (sometimes not even that), they could just walk in and sit around. They were followed by the Greater Young Con- servatives, the pioneers at Tory confer- ences. Labour delegates, as usual, caught on last. The result was that politicians and journalists were being importuned by opi- nionated bores. Still they come, braving 'security'. I look back regretfully to the days when the headquarters hotel accommodated only Cabinet Ministers, rich MPs, members of the National Execu- tive Committee and representatives of the more prosperous national newspapers.
xciting almost as much interest among the political classes as the fate of Mrs Thatcher was that of Bruce (`The Brute') Anderson. At the time of writing (an appeal is being considered by Mr Conrad Black's man of business, Mr Dan Colson of Toronto), he had been dismissed by the Sunday Telegraph. It happened thus. Prince Charles, at a private meeting with Mr Moore, made adverse comments on Mr Andrew Knight, deprecating his corruption, or such it seemed to HRH, by power and money. Mr Moore told his editor at the Telegraph, Mr Max Hastings, who is also editor-in-chief of the Sunday Telegraph. Mr Trevor Grove is editor of the Sunday, while Mr Peregrine Wor- sthorne is editor of its 'Comment' section. Mr Anderson is or was assistant editor and political columnist of the Sunday. Both his column and 'Mandrake' appear in Mr Worsthorne's section. At a lunch in the Telegraph building Mr Hastings told Mr Worsthorne and Mr Anderson of HRH's observation. Mr Anderson said it would make a good 'Mandrake' item, as he was writing the column that week. Mr Hastings demurred, though without it seems any great force. Mr Moore, when news of Mr Anderson's intentions reached him, was forceful enough. Nevertheless Mr Ander- son thought — or claimed — that he had the authority, anyway the acquiescence, of Mr Hastings and Mr Black for including the item. Mr Worsthorne passed it for publication on the strength of these assur- ances by Mr Anderson, though it is fair to say that it has always been his general inclination to publish. On the Saturday evening, Mr Anderson telephoned Mr Moore and informed him that the item had been included. Whether he did this out of consideration or bravado is difficult to say. Mr Moore was indignant and demanded that it be 'pulled', as we old newspapermen say. Pulled it was, after the second edition. HRH did not see it. Few would have known about it if the story had not leaked to the Independent on Sunday. I have heard of journalists' being sacked for missing a story but rarely for putting one in with the approval of their editor.
Previous page
