Spectator's Notebook

This, it seems, is the choice that at present splits the Cabinet—not, understandably, on a left v. right basis, but liberal Labour v. illiberal Labour. Those ministers who believe in indi- dual liberty, like Mr Crosland and Mr Brown, are (it appears) opposed to indefinite state con- trol; those who don't, the dons—and school- masters-gone-wrong like Mr Crossman and Mr Stewart, want it. In so far as there's any agree- ment at all, it's that (according to the Financial Times) 'what Ministers want to see is a voluntary incomes policy, supported by management and employees, and backed by statutory powers only to be used against the "selfish few" who breach the spirit of the policy.' By this Morton's Fork definition of 'voluntary' the highwayman who demands 'your money or your life' could justly claim to be a collector of charitable donations.

A Piffle

The principal argument now used by the ad- vocates of perpetual state control of wages and prices is the 'success' of the statutory freeze so fat But how successful in fact has it been and is it likely to be in the seven months that remain? As usual, no official figures have ever been pub- ished. But the eminent econometrician Professor Ball, of the London Business School, has worked out with the aid of a computer, and published, estimates and forecasts of the balance of pay- ments position in 1966 and 1967 on the alterna- tive assumptions of freeze and no freeze. And his figures suggest a prospective gain to the

balance of payments from the freeze alone (this includes the 'severe restraint' period, too) of the order of some 140 million. This, in the imperish- able words of Professor Kaldor, is 'a piffle.' It's also, incidentally, less than the extra interest burden to the balance of payments of Bank Rate at 7 per cent.

To curtail individual liberty, add a further massive element of inefficiency to the private enterprise system as we know it today, and to alienate the trade unions, all for a 'gain' as small as this, would be both monstrous and absurd. Which, I profoundly hope, is the reason why, when asked on television at last year's Trade Union Congress whether there would be a return to free collective bargaining after the period of 'severe restraint' was over, the Prime Minister uncharacteristically replied with a categorical 'Yes.'

Fred da Vinci

'What the new generation is concerned about is poverty,' declared Mr Wilson soon after be- coming Prime Minister, `a fact we have recog- nised by having for the first time in the Cabinet a Minister for Overseas Development.' Wja mustn't, of course, be surprised that in last weekY reshuffle the Minister for Overseas Develop- ment was ejected from the Cabinet. Increasingly, the Prime Minister is coming to resemble the grand old Duke of York, marching his men up to the top of the hill and then marching them down again. This may be termed the technique of two initiatives for the price of none; and no- where is it easier to apply than in Whitehall, where, as well as this, the dynamic act of creat- ing a separate Ministry of Land is now being capped by the pragmatic act of abolishing it.

Not that the reshuffle was without merit: far from it. There was, outstandingly, the belated inclusion of Mr Harold Lever in the Govern- ment's ranks in a junior post at the Department of Economic Affairs—but I'd better not praise that too much in case it prejudices his chances of subsequent further promotion to a real ministry, like the Treasury. The DEA, in- cidentally, has also acquired that prodigy of a polymath, the Leonardo da Vinci of our time,

Mr Fred Lee, who, in the space of less than a year, has mastered the Ministry of Power (with all the complex problems of North Sea gas and steel denationalisation), the Colonial Office in the difficult twilight of Empire, and is now to pre- side over the incomes policy (which proved too much for George Brown). How agreeable it is to see real Labour professionalism at work in place of the discredited Tory cult of the amateur, when anybody was supposed to be able to turn his hand to anything.

Arise, Sir Malcolm

I must own up. It isn't every day I get invited to spend ten days in California. Nor is it every day that I'm offered $4,000 for my pains. Yet such was the handsome invitation that came my way a few weeks ago from an organisation that describes itself as CAPES (College Association for Public Events and Services, representing Colleges and Universities throughout California, to give it its full title) but which was hitherto, I'm ashamed to admit, unknown to me. As, indeed, were the distinguished but euphonious academies represented on its board: the Colleges of San Mateo, Contra Costa, El Camino, Chaff ey, Fresno City, Fullerton Junior (why didn't Fullerton Senior want me?), Grass- mont, West Valley, Cerritos, Pasadena City, Napa Junior (what, again?) and Monterey Penin- sular.

Now, I'm not the sort of person to take umbrage at a couple of Juniors, as anyone who knows me will confirm. Unhappily, there's just one snag. According to CAPES, I'd have to earn the $4,000 by giving 'ten illustrious talks.' And they would indeed have to be illustrious to com- pare with the galaxy of talent whom, I was in- formed, the same organisation 'have and are presenting.' These included such household names as Peter Bender, Frances Noel-Baker, MP, Alan Watts, Lord C. P. Snow, Robert Mont- gomery, MP, Peter Brooks and Sir Malcolm Muggeridge. I can't wait to hear how he got on.

Sensation

Although in a time of economic weakness the Government can scarcely avoid givng the im- pression of reacting to changing situations month by month, Mr Wilson and his party managers are not allowing electoral considerations to be forgotten, even if they cannot consistently be the governing considerations.

—Opening paragraph of The Times' political correspondent's front-page news story on Monday.

-Yet another Times exclusive.

They Said It

Finally, to brighten the dismal January days, let me record one or two hitherto unpublished (but bona fide) remarks presently going the rounds in the notorious corridors of gossip (sometimes known as the corridors of power): Cabinet Minister (after last week's reshuffle):

You've no idea what a relief it is not to have one's chauffeur saying to one 'I hear from the other chauffeurs you're going to get the chopper.'

Mr George Brown (to Mr Gromyko, at a New York dinner, on finding that they were the only guests not in evening dress): It's good to see another Menshevik.

M. Rueff (de Gaulle's economic eminence dor*, to Professor Kaldor): As usual, everything you say is correct . . . except your conclusions.

Mr Wilson (after the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference): It's nice to join the human race again.

NIGEL LAWSON