SPECTATOR'S NOTEBOOK
J. W. M. THOMPSON
'Flower people,' Edward Heath called the Scot- tish Nationalists in a misguided moment during the Hamilton by-election. I can't think why English Tories like Mr Heath find it sensible to abuse the Nationalists in this way. They seem not to realise (although I'm sure Mr Wilson does) that the Labour party is very largely kept going by its support in Scotland and Wales. If those two countries had gone their separatist ways, Mr Wilson would tnever have become Prime Minister in 1964: the Conservatives in England mustered a perfectly workable majority over Labour of fifteen seats. It was only when Labour assembled its farflung forces from the Celtic fringes that Mr Wilson scraped together his narrow majority. Furthermore, although the 1966 election in such circum- stances would presumably never have hap- pened, it would in fact require a swing of only 2.6 per cent or so from the 1966 figures to give the Tories a majority in England next time. On recent form that must look like child's play to Mr Heath, whereas in Scotland a 6.2 per cent swing is needed and in Wales one of 16.5 per cent.
So far as I can see, if the Tories are seeking an identity, as we're often told, they ought seriously to consider becoming the party of English Home Rule. One of their short-term aims, pending full secession by the outlying territories, might be equality of representation in the UK Parliament. Scotland and Wales have between them at least a dozen more Mies than they're entitled to numerically. There is also the case of Northern Ireland, woefully under- represented at Westminster: an Ulster MP speaks for nearly twice as many electors as one from Scotland. Ulster also happens to be overwhelmingly pro-Tory, and shows no desire whatever to secede. It's strange that no far- sighted Conservative has put two and two to- gether, and concluded that the merits of separate parliaments for Scotland and Wales greatly outweigh any damage they might do to lingering imperial pride.
CARD collapse
After its disastrous convention in London at the weekend, the future of the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination looks grim. Anyone who doubts the ugly potentialities of Britain's race problem ought to reflect upon the events which culminated in the collapse of this convention in noisy disorder. An Organised takeover bid was made by a group of extremist organisations (including what are, I'm told, Maoist, Trotskyite, and Marxist- Leninist factions), and their onslaught achieved a large measure of success. The extremists stigmatised all opposition as 'Uncle Tom'-ism; evidently this fatal label demoralised people Who might have been expected to make a stand for moderation. Many of these invaders, in- cidentally, appear to have been present as representatives of bogus or hastily created Paper organisations, so it 'might be thought Ihat the special committee set up to inquire into their credentials would clear up some of the mess; however, not the least of their triumphs was to gain a strong footing in this very Committee.
All in all, CARD is now in real danger of ceasing to play its useful role • against racial discrimination and becoming instead a vehicle for racial hostility. If this happens it will be a great pity—and also peculiarly untimely, since the CARD approach has gained an impor- tant victory in getting some anti-discrimination legislation on the statute book, along with a promise of a much more significant law in the coming session. I have been reading with ad- miration the newly published Street Report. which examines calmly and humanely the whole scope of anti-discrimination legislation. One had hoped this document would set the tone for the coming debate. Instead, the lead- ing 'Civil Rights' organisation is at this moment evolving into an intransigent com- bination for 'Black Power.' It is a warning.
Ombudsmouse
I don't know that anyone ever took very seriously the appointment of the Ombudsman, in the sense, that is, of expecting him to be able to intervene successfully between the citizen and the major threats to his rights which emanate from Whitehall. Those who did, if such exist, can hardly have been forti- fied in their faith by the experience of a group of London residents whose appeals for relief from the miseries of incessant aircraft noise were recently referred to him. The worthy Sir Edmund Compton told them, in effect, that authority could impose whatever din it liked upon citizens, and there was nothing he could do about it. As the citizen apparently has no other way, through the courts or elsewhere, of protecting himself in this respect, the Ombuds- man may have seemed to promise some hope of support: but no. A 'specific failure of ad- ministration' (in other words, some individual slip-up) can be chastised, but the wholesale destruction of citizens' living standards re- mains, as before, something no one can do anything about.
Apart from asserting his own ineffectiveness, in this case Sir Edmund also chose to com- ment on whether manufacturers ought to be made to produce quieter engines for aircraft. His decision was that they ought not, since these would not sell so readily abroad. This opinion is, to put it mildly, debatable: aircraft noise is not, strangely enough, a uniquely British problem. But what interests me is not the value of Sir Edmund's opinion on this subject but the bizarre fact that he should be publishing it at all. In the heyday of optimism about the Ombudsman, no one foresaw that our knight in shining armour, dedicated to combating the misdeeds of proud authority, would one day find himself reduced to airing his views on the relative export possibilities of different kinds of aircraft engine.
Somebody loves him
Extract from a letter received this week from a friend in Athens: 'Wilson's remarks about communist plots have gone down splendidly here, of course—"Distinguished British Prime Minister implicitly supports the Revolution of 21 April," and so on. Wilson is the big hero— the BBC is the great enemy,stuffed with com- munists and fellow-travellers.'
Previous page
