Notebook
Disgusted readers of the Daily Telegraph have been persecuting its kindly editor with complaints about one of the best misprints to appear in any newspaper for ages. This was in the paper's list of televi- sion programmes on Monday. The entry under Panorama read: `After the Invasion. Panorama examines the aftermath of the Grenada invasion. Cheerful comedy.' It may appear surprising that so many Telegraph readers did not recognise this as a mistake, but then as a description of the Grenada invasion `cheerful comedy' is not really so far off the mark. Apart from the bloodshed, the episode had all the ingre- dients of good comedy. The gravity of Mr Reagan, the bellowing of Mr Healey, the embarrassment of Mrs Thatcher, the earnestness of Sir Geoffrey Howe, the anger of the Queen, all appear ridiculous when they are related to the affairs of a pif- fling little Caribbean island whose in- habitants, so Shiva Naipaul tells us on another page, are valued in neighbouring Trinidad mainly for their usefulness as domestic servants.
Ishould apologise to the managers of Reuters news agency. I have been sug- gesting in recent issues of the Spectator that because the top men in Reuters own substantial shareholdings in it, they would become millionaires if Reuters were floated on the Stock Exchange as a public come Party. I have been suggesting, in other words, that they have a strong personal in- terest in the proposed flotation. I take this hack, for now I discover that they are likely to become millionaires anyway. Even if Reuters remains a private company, whose shares cannot be bought and sold on the °Pen market, the employees who have shares in Reuters — there are now more than 120 of them — will not suffer any serious disappointment. Under the ar- rangements made two years ago, by which chosen members of the staff are allowed to Purchase shares, they may dispose of them at any time, their value being determined by the Inland Revenue which has to decide what they would be worth if they could be openly traded. Most published estimates have put the value of Reuters, if it went Public, at around £1,000 million, If this ligure were correct (and it is now con- sidered rat her over-optimistic), the shareholdings of the three top executives of the company — Mr Glen Renfrew, Mr Michael Nelson, and Mr Nigel Judah would respectively be worth £5,450,000, £3,610,000 and £3,060,000. A large group of second-ranking executives would each stand to get £400,000 or more. It is really very difficult to interest anybody in the serious issues raised by the proposed Reuters flotation, for there is practically nobody who does not seem more interested in whether he himself can get a stake in the goldmine. This is not surprising on the part of the principal shareholders like the Fleet Street newspapers who need more and more money to launch new bingo competitions and millionaires' clubs. Less excusable, if utterly predictable, are the demands of the Fleet Street print unions for a share in the carve-up, for they have no claims on Reuters and are anyway responsi- ble for most of Fleet Street's financial pro- blems. To me the chief disappointment, though, is the attitude of Sir Zelman Cowen, the new Chairman of the Press Council. One might have expected the Press Council to interest itself in the possible dangers of the proposed Reuters flotation — to consider, for example, whether this is compatible with the principles of the Reuters trust agreement which states, among other things, that Reuters shall not fall into the hands of any interest group or faction. The Press Council's statutory ob- jectives imply that it ought to take an in- terest in this sort of thing. But on Monday there appeared in the Guardian the follow- ing headline: 'Press 'body pleads for cash from windfall.' And beneath it was a report of a speech by Sir Zelman suggesting that some of the Reuters money should be used to fund the Press Council. I had hoped for better from him.
The Policy and Resources Committee of Leeds City Council met on Tuesday to take a fateful decision. Two recommenda- tions were before it: '1) that the naming ceremony for "Nelson Mandela Gardens"
should take place on Saturday, 10th December, 1983. 2) Expenditure not ex- ceeding £350 on a commemorative tablet, carved in Welsh slate and fixed to a stone wall in "Nelson Mandela Gardens".' Both recommendations were approved by the Labour majority while the Tories, accusing the Labour councillors of political postur- ing, announced that they would not attend the ceremony and that, if they were return- ed to power, they would rename the gardens `Civic Hall Gardens'. The decision to name the gardens after the South African anti-apartheid hero was taken by the Coun- cil a year ago, and it had originally been hoped that Mrs Winnie Mandela (her hus- band being in prison) would attend the naming ceremony. This had been fixed for 11 October, which is South African Political Prisoners' Day. But it turned out that, although Mrs Mandela accepted the invitation, stieig feistlicted to her village in South Africa'apd is not allowed to leave. So the Council is askinglhe Foreign Secretary to intervene with ;,the, South African government in the hive that she may still be able to come on tO December which, as it so happen' United Nations Human Rights Day. I give all this detail to show what a lot of thought and effort goes into this sort of thing.
T keep forgetting that Lord Hailsham is I around, partly because he has been around for so long but also because he seldom nowadays makes speeches of in- terest to anyone but lawyers. But this week he emerged from the shadows to hold forth to the Coningsby Club about the general state of British politics. He revealed himself as an unreformed consensus politician, stressing the need for a stronger opposition and advising the Liberal-SDP Alliance on the steps they should take to assume this role. `Let them woo Jim Callaghan, Denis Healey, and Lord Elwyn Jones for all they are worth,' he said. 'They are badly in need of a heavyweight and experienced cam- paigner or two.' This seems to be good ad- vice, but I am not sure how popular it will make him with Mrs Thatcher, Lord Hailsham is in danger of committing the heresy of Francis Pym, who during the elec- tion blotted his copybook with the Prime Minister by suggesting it would be better if the Tories did not have too large a majori- ty. These are the sorts of argument with which Mrs Thatcher has little sympathy. Her ideal Parliament would be peopled en- tirely by Conservatives, and Thatcherites at that. She has a perfectly understandable desire to crush her enemies, not to en- courage them, and expects her colleagues to share that urge. However, as she now en- joys such a powerful position in the House of Commons, I expect she will forgive the old buffer. But he might be well advised to stop and think before he makes another speech along those lines.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
