THE SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK

Assuming—and I know of no good reason not to—that next year the Common Market will provide the chief topic of discussion and debate and the chief element in the political life of the country, the question for Con- servatives that will be raised, and as much in Fleet Street as in Westminster is 'Do we risk bringing down the Government on the Common Market?' It is clearly the Govern- ment's obstinate intention to recommend that Britain should accept whatever terms Geoffrey Rippon brings back. The question for Labour members and newspapers is only slightly less difficult, and is 'Do we change our minds, unite ourselves in opposition to the British entry, and derive whatever political capital might flow from such an undignified but doubtless popular tactic?'

Sound Express

I should be very surprised if Sir Max Aitken's Express group of newspapers con- duct themselves other than they would have had Lord Beaverbrook still been alive: that is to say, their objection to the Common Market will, quite properly, override their support of the Conservative administration. This means that the leading popular paper of the Tory persuasion can be expected to oppose the Government, even to the extent, if it should come to the point, of supporting a Labour party committedly hostile to the British (and Labour-initiated) application.

Cracked Mirror?

But what about the Mirror group. the Labour party's chief prop? During Cecil King's time, and since, the Mirror has remained faithful to its European ideal. On the not dissimilar issue of industrial relations, the Mirror very loyally (despite some considerable resistance from its readers) supported the Labour government and Barbara Castle. When Wilson was forced to abandon the Bill, the Mirror chiefs were absolutely furious, for they were left as it were holding the baby. Now that Robert Carr is introducing a Bill Which, despite all Barbara Castle's noisy assertions to the contrary, is a very similar Piece of legislation to that which she herself Was prevented from passing through the Commons, the indications are that the Mirror will generally support it. The Mirror is, that Is to say, still capable of speaking up against the party line.

Imperial presses

But has it the stomach to continue to do so on the Common Market? I never fully understood the European enthusiasm of Cecil King and Hugh Cudlipp and Sydney Jacobson and John Beavan (or Lord Ardwick as he is now become). It frequently occurred to me that one ingredient in that enthusiasm was the friendship and business connections between Cecil King and his International Publishing Corporation of England, and Axel Springer and his not dissimilar German empire. I think that both King and Springer envisaged a very great publishing imperium indeed, dominating the popular press of Europe, and thereafter spreading wider still and wider.

Which course for Ryder?

Now I haven't the faintest idea what, if any, are the relations between Don Ryder. Cecil King's and Hugh Cudlipp's successor and boss of Reed-International, the newsprint and wallpaper firm which now incorporates the Mirror group, and the Springer people; although I assume that Springer's London end still bases itself in offices in_33 Holborn, the Mirror's skyscraper. But I doubt if those relations are as close as they were in the Cecil King days.

The thought therefore occurs to me that the Mirror might not necessarily be so dotty about Europe as it used to be, especially now that the Labour party is very obviously wobbling, now that public opposition is hardening, and now that the Sun, having been sold dirt cheap by the Mirror in order, so it seems, to provide the Mirror with serious tabloid opposition, is doing so well. The Mirror might be happy to fight one battle with its readers and its party over industrial relations; but to fight another, possibly simultaneously, over the Common Market?

One question, of course, is whether the Mirror, which is undoubtedly the best and most profitable property in the 'Pc stable, will, for long, be left Ryderless.

Silenced Service?

Another thought occurs to me. Sir William Armstrong. as Head of the Home Civil Ser- vice, has suggested that civil servants be allowed to join in public debate on their findings. Despite the great difficulties in the areas of political and economic policy a brick through a window or something, and

Who says we're not seeking peace?

despite Sir William's acknowledgment that 'any public utterance' by a civil servant (is) a somewhat perilous adventure', on a matter of such overriding Importance as this, it would be a desirable and courageous act if those high civil servants who do not share the official view spoke out. Or are they under political orders to say nothing?

Better Coxless

There are good signatures—some of them from our own contributors—on Professor Cox's circular letter about relations between teachers and undergraduates. It is good to know that not all dons are as malignant as the most articulate sometimes seem. Still, it would've been better if the letter hadn't been written or, having been written, hadn't been published.

It isn't that its general conclusions are wrong, whatever may be wrong in detail. It's just that this sort of public declaration is inadequate to the real problem and that relations between teachers and pupils, whether individually or en masse, are so private and peculiar to eaoh place and person that general statement of this sort is irrelevant. There is a lot to be said for think- ing that this letter, like many other things that are designed to do good, if it does anything, will do harm.

No ideological reasons

In a public house I sometimes frequent. I overheard a bearded mid-Atlantic chap who had come fresh from a meeting which had, apparently, been organising a demo. He was very pleased with himself and with the projected demo. I noticed that he wore a fat ring on a fat and hairy finger. The gold ring incorporated a diamond. It was not a diamond as big as the Ritz, but it was of quite a decent size. It became clear that he was attempting to persuade some other re- volutionaries who belonged to a marginally different political persuasion, or sect, to join with him in the projected demo. He kept on repeating `No other ideological reasons be- hind it. I mean it, there are no other ideolo- gical reasons at all' as he waved his hands around and his diamond coruscated.

Demos have long since become ends in themselves, but nevertheless they need some ostensible cause to lend them plausibility. I have the distinct impression, from conver- sations with people from the universities of Cambridge, Oxford and Essex and from such essentially right-wing institutions as the London School of Economics, that our youthful revolutionaries are running out of causes. The rent-a-crowd mob is still around, but it has nowhere to go. Perhaps, slowly, is growing the suspicion that, in the last resort, there are no ideological reasons at all, not any.

Inside for winter

I was talking to the consultant psychologist at one of the big Home Counties hospitals. and he said that the bins always filled up at this time of year. 'Is it the approach of Christmas that sends people potty?' I said. mentioning the most likely explanation of this odd phenomenon. 'No.' he said. 'it's the cold weather. People go inside for the winter. It's warm and dry inside. It's the same with the prisons. When it gets too cold, they heave a brick through a window or something. and retire for the winter. They come out again in the spring.'