POLITICS
The prerogative of the Cabinet minister throughout the ages
SIMON HEFFER Not long ago, one of our more robust Cabinet ministers took me aside and dis- quisited on the need for the press and his colleagues to conduct battle according to 'the Queensberry Rules'. The minister con- cerned can look after himself and likes a fight, so was not speaking out of self-inter- est. He had recognised, though, that the persecution of some ministers by certain newspapers, and the ferocity with which the Prime Minister was being attacked over the economy and Maastricht, risked fatally destabilising the Government terminally.
Now Mr Lamont's treatment by the press is the focus of ministerial angst. The Lam- ont question has shifted from the proper topic of whether his political skills and judgment are equal to the job of Chancel- lor, and passed onto the improper one of why he exceeds the limit on his credit card, and what he buys at off-licences. The emer- gence of a further difficulty, of the Trea- sury paying some of Mr Lamont's legal expenses, takes the debate back into the realm of public interest. Such problems do not necessarily mean Mr Lamont is a bad minister. One of our better Prime Minis- ters, Pitt the Younger, spent much of his time in office so financially embarrassed that he made Mr Lamont look like Mr Paul Raymond. But poor old Billy did not have the gutter press inspecting his IOUs, nor, indeed, whether it was just veal pies he had from Bellamy's. If he had a credibility prob- lem, it was kept from those among whom he had to inspire 'confidence'.
It is not odd that this Government should feel persecuted by the media, though the claims by friends of the Chancellor that there is an orchestrated dirty tricks cam- paign to `get' him must, pending the evi- dence, be regarded as the product of over- active imaginations. Other governments have felt paranoia. Harold Wilson regarded the BBC as existing to undermine him. Anthony Eden thought the Daily Telegraph was dedicated to his removal from office. But most famous of all — and with paral- lels to the arguments today — was Stanley Baldwin's spat with Lords Northcliffe and Beaverbrook in the row about Empire free trade between 1929 and 1931. When reason failed to sway Baldwin, Northcliffe decided to get personal. He wrote an editorial in the Daily Mail pointing out that a man who had lost his own fortune was in no position to revive the country's. This was especially
cruel. Wanting to help with the 1914-18 war effort, Baldwin had in fact given the Trea- sury vast amounts of money from the iron business his father had left him. Baldwin answered Northcliffe in a speech at a cam- paign meeting during the St George's by- election of 1931: 'What the proprietor of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility — the prerog- ative of the harlot throughout the ages.' Baldwin said he had taken advice about Northcliffe's comments and had been told he could sue successfully; noting that this would bring him an apology and damages, he decided that 'the first is of no value, and the second I would not touch with a barge- pole'. Lady Diana Cooper, whose husband was Baldwin's candidate in the by-election, said she saw the hacks 'jump out of their skins to a man' at this attack.
Things have changed since then. Politi- cians are keener to keep office, and they are more materialistic. For both reasons they — with odd notable exceptions — court publicity. They use the press ruthless- ly. Most are perfectly civil to it so long as it does what it is told. Any sign of indepen- dent thought is regarded not just with sus- picion, but with downright hostility. Bald- win would never have dreamed of cultivat- ing reptiles in the way most politicians do now. He ridiculed the notion that he could behave slavishly towards the press. He could not say to the King, when choosing a Cabinet, 'Sire, these names are not neces- sarily my choice, but they have the support of Lord Rothermere.' Mr Major has asked a question that echoes this sentiment. At the height of the Mellor affair, he pon- dered whether he or Mr Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, chose ministers. He did not get the answer he expected.
In many cases, politicians have, for rea- sons of their own ambition, brought them- selves down to the level of journalists; which is not always very attractive, and cer- tainly not a rank of dignity to which the highest in the land should want to descend. The alteration of the relationship between the press and ministers of the Crown reminds one of a remark a very grand mar- quess is said to have made to a racing cor- respondent about the democratisation of the sport: 'Of course things have changed. My grandfather wouldn't have been seen dead talking to someone like you.'
The French have a saying that those who sleep with dogs often catch fleas. Some ministers have learned this the hard way, not least Messrs Major and Lamont, who have rung up a few editors in their time. Mr Lamont is being treated roughly by some newspapers for two reasons. The first is because they, in their definition of morali- ty, think he has behaved badly by clinging on to office after the policy to which he publicly and repeatedly committed himself collapsed. Had Mr Lamont resigned on 16 September few editors would have felt there was much of a a story in his credit- card troubles, and nor would anyone have dug into the matter of how he funded the removal of a tart from his basement. Because he has clung on he has, in the eyes of his detractors, asked for all he gets.
The second reason for his rough treat- ment is to do with the baseness of human nature. Many politicians use the press to present the best possible view of their activ- ities. As a result, they sometimes become media personalities in their own right. Ordinary people, for reasons too bizarre to imagine, become interested in them. This is fine when things are going well. It is not so good when, as a result of public interest, editors seek to boost circulations by print- ing accounts of ministerial cock-ups. Mr Lamont is good for circulation, because so many readers of newspapers find him absurd and like to read of further humilia- tions for him. This is not just true of Sun readers, who after the economic collapse were told by their paper 'NOW WE'VE ALL BEEN SCREWED BY THE CABI- NET', but of Daily Telegraph readers too, who have supported the justified calls by that paper for Mr Lamont's resignation.
Word from Mr Lamont's friends earlier this week was that he was considering suing some of those who had drawn unsavoury innuendos from his (as it turned out fic- tional) purchase of a bottle of cheap cham- pagne and a packet of fags. He should bear in mind Mr Baldwin's remarks about the bargepole, and remember how much more serious and concrete Mr Baldwin's hurt was. He should also bear in mind that he is probably one of the few people in this country held in lower esteem these days than the average journalist, and that the Sun and Daily Telegraph readers on any libel jury hearing his case would almost cer- tainly not treat him with the compassion he apparently thinks he deserves.
Previous page
