7 OCTOBER 1995, Page 9

DIARY

DAVID ENGLISH LBrighton ord Northcliffe's old office, while not as big as Mussolini's, had a pretty fair acreage. After his death, it was turned into a boardroom and later a dining-room to which came the 'names' of Britain to break bread with successive Publishers and Edi- tors of the Daily Mail. Invitations were highly prized, particularly from the present Lord Rothermere — who moved the room in its Second Empire entirety to our new Kensington headquarters — for, under him, the gastronomic quality of Northcliffe House became, if anything, higher than that of the journalism. Harold Wilson was a frequent and popular visitor, reminding us roguishly, after a particularly lengthy din- ner, that we had served almost as many courses to him as he had served writs on us. Callaghan, Healey, Grimond, Thorpe, Owen, even Wedgie Benn, all tucked in at our expense, enjoying the fizz of the cross- talk as much as the champagne. Of course, it was not all affability. Ted Heath, asked how the paper could help his Government, curtly responded that we -could start by sacking our parliamentary sketch writer, Andrew Alexander, whose views, he snapped, were completely 'negative'. Heath was never invited again.

hen Neil Kinnock became leader of the Labour Party, I invited him to join us for lunch at a convenient date and he replied that there were no convenient dates. Undeterred, I waited six months and tried again. I was told he was unavailable for the foreseeable future. So I waited for an election to pass (the first one he lost) and tried yet again. This time I didn't even get a reply. It was childish, but it went beyond that. It was clear that some sort of official warning had been issued to Shadow Cabinet members that Associated Newspa- pers' dining-room was forbidden territory. This we proved beyond reasonable doubt by inviting Roy Hattersley, hinting at a par- ticularly tempting menu. He turned us down, though he must have suffered ago- nising pangs of regret at what he was miss- ing. In the end, only one member of the Shadow Cabinet had the guts to defy the Whip and enter our lair. That man was Tony Blair. When he arrived — and this was several years ago — he surprised us instantly by saying that not everything the Thatcher Government was doing was wrong or stupid and in his view a sensible Labour government should not necessarily change too many things. It was a pretty refreshing start to a relationship with a Labour politician. But we all liked it and him. And so Tony became a regular visitor, at that time our only link to the paranoid and neurotic Labour Party of Neil Kinriock. hen John Smith took over, normal dialogue resumed with the Labour Party. That is to say, the leader accepted our first invitation and we sat through civilised but stilted lunches with him and his colleagues, in which they were guarded and defensive and our questioning was resolutely deflect- ed. It wasn't until Blair took over that lunches with a Labour Party leader became fun at Northcliffe House once again. Much more fun, incidentally, than when members of the current Government came gloomily to dine. In contrast Blair — whether he was alone or with his minders — radiated frankness and honesty. So it was no great surprise to me when the grant-maintained London Oratory School story broke. I had already asked Blair what the Labour Party's view would be on grammar schools. Would it resurrect Crosland's final solution and exterminate the 153 remaining? 'No,' he replied. 'That would be stupid and point- less.' This was comforting to me, as a gov- ernor of my old grammar school. So then we'd gone on to grant-maintained schools and Blair had said he had no real ideologi- cal resentment against them. He believed in choice and, if grant-maintained schools were doing well, Labour's real interest was in bringing other schools up to their stan- dards. Though not all his party shared his views, he added with a smile. And we've certainly seen that this week in Brighton.

hen we talked about trade unions and what they had done to kill the British newspaper industry, Blair acknowledged what we had gone through. And he indicat- ed quite clearly that, if in power, the posi- 'You give 'em an inch and they take it away.' tion would not be restored to the point where we would have to face that again. Naturally, we wanted to believe him. At one lunch, the Daily Mail's Editor, Paul Dacre, mentioned one of his paper's justi- fied current obsessions — the social and welfare costs of single mothers and what that was doing to society. This was some- thing that had been raised with both John Major and John Smith and had brought an almost identical response — a knee-jerk politically correct dismissal of the subject. But, to Paul's surprise, Blair made it clear that he shared his concerns. He spoke pas- sionately about how the present unques- tioned acceptance of the situation was actu- ally betraying a generation of children. That brought us to welfare as a major issue. The debate was intense but it was Blair who cut through everything with the remark, 'Well, we all agree the welfare state has got to be radically reformed. Who's going to do it? You may find that I am the only one who has the will to do it.' A thoughtful silence followed.

0 f course, when the freshness and the charm of our exchanges with the inventor of new Labour recedes after his departure, we are not entirely left without scepticism. Will he control the unions, or them him? Is there a secret deal? Will foundation schools be the killer virus for grant-main- tained schools? Will tax and spending get out of control? We have no difficulty in rounding up all the usual suspicions. And the Brighton speech has neither confirmed them nor dispelled them. But, equally, we are not without scepticism towards the pre- sent Government. So we feel we must con- tinue our dialogue with Tony Blair to the point where we can accurately reflect our opinion of him come the election: whether to attack him, remain neutral or even endorse him. Nearer the day, this is some- thing I will discuss with our Editors and then take their views, and mine, to our pro- prietor for final judgment. That day is still a long way away. But musing aloud about the unthinkable over a lunch with Lord Rothermere this week, I tried to visualise how our editorials might read should we support Blair in the next election. 'Could such a thing even be possible?' I wondered. 'Well, it certainly would not be impossible, David,' he replied, having recently come from a two hour one-to-one with the Labour leader. So, could Associated Newspapers come out for Labour? It is too early to say. We may or we may not. But, if we do, remember — you read it here first!

Sir David English is Chairman of Associated Newspapers.