DIARY DES WILSON
Ihave always rather liked David Owen. For all his self-evident faults, working with him, at least on the 1987 General Election campaign, could be challenging and re- warding; he liked ideas and he was ready to take risks. However, he has in my view made four major errors over the past two years and the latest is one too many. The first, in 1987, was deliberately to torpedo the report of his own Alliance Defence Commission before it was even published, thus sowing the seeds of the Eastbourne fiasco. The second was to believe, when David Steel initiated the merger talks, that he would not be elected leader of the new party. I believe he would have won at least 55 per cent of the vote. The third (an Inevitable outcome of the second) was then not to accept the democratic decision of the SDP and thus to cause the 'muddle in the middle' that is now breathing fresh life Into the two-party system. The last, and I believe the fatal one, was to make it known last week that he was open to overtures from the Labour Party. Apart from the effect on his own loyalists' morale of this kind of thinking aloud — for they must feel more and more like an opera chorus wheeled on to bolster the big scenes for the star — it shows a staggering insensitivity to the sheer hatred he arouses within the Labour Party. A deal with Labour might be possible if there was a balance of power after the next General Election, if Owen, Cartwright and Barnes were re-elected, and if just three seats would make a difference, but I suspect the result of his premature initiative will be that Labour's leaders will close the door before it has even been opened. He may also have made it less likely that the three SDP MPs will hold their seats. Like their party members, their constituents must be running out of patience with the continual manoeuvring for survival. That leaves only the question of a possible Owen pre-election endorse- ment of Labour; my guess is that by the time Central Office has got to work on past quotations such an endorsement would be worthless. I get no pleasure from the prediction, but I believe last week saw the beginning of the end of David Owen as an Important political figure in Britain.
If I were the chairman of a company the apparently negligent behaviour of which had caused the death or injury to hundreds of people, some of whose families are still waiting for adequate compensation, I would feel honour-bound to struggle on without an increase in my £220,900 salary. Not Sir Jeffrey Sterling of P & 0, owners of the ferry that sunk at Zeebrugge be- cause the doors to the car deck were left open. His salary has just been raised by 73 per cent to £381,800 a year. The rise is said
to be 'performance-related' but profits have increased by just 15 per cent and earnings per share by just over 14 per cent. So what performance are we talking ab- out? Maybe it's his resilience in retaining the chairmanship, acting on the thesis that those at the top should always take respon- sibility for an organisation's achievements but never its failures. Whatever it's for, I can't believe his friend the Prime Minister can be impressed. At a time when she is desperate to encourage pay restraint it is hardly the lead she is entitled to expect from a public-spirited knight.
Iwent to Arundel on Sunday to see the newly arrived Australian cricket team's one-day match with Lavinia Duchess of Norfolk's XI. I like to think this early sighting of the old enemy qualifies me to discuss the most critical question facing the nation this summer, namely what to do about Ian Botham. If our new cricketing supremo Ted Dexter is as bold as they say, he will tell Botham immediately that he is selected for all five tests. Then, I hope, the big man will stop attempting statesmanlike innings to prove himself and start playing his natural game. It is a risk, of course, but Dexter is said to be a gambler. He should gamble on talent. Botham may behave like an overgrown schoolboy from time to time, but he is the only really inspirational cricketer we have. By comparison Derek Pringle, apparently his rival for an England place, is a mediocre plodder. Dexter must give Botham the thing he needs most —
renewed confidence to open his shoulders and hit the ball.
The publication of his autobiography has led to a flood of new Willie Whitelaw anecdotes. My own concerns the 1984 Granada Guildhall lectures on freedom of information. Viscount Whitelaw, who was privately not unreceptive to the case for greater openness, chaired the contribution by Mr Justice Kirby of New South Wales who, having come all the way from Austra- lia, had taken the trouble to prepare a substantial paper. After Willie had 'intro- duced him with typical courtesy and gener- osity, the Australian confidently walked to the lectern, smiled at his audience, looked down to where he had carefully placed his manuscript . . . and froze. His eyes re- vealed complete panic. He seemed unable to speak. My God, I thought, he's had a heart attack. And indeed he would have been justified in having one; Willie had walked off with his whole speech.
Britain's sports administrators are notoriously insensitive, especially in the world of rugby football; one can only assume they are all brain-damaged former front-row forwards. There was an extra- ordinary juxtaposition of news stories on the front page of the Daily Telegraph the other day. One stated that three South African diplomats had been ordered out of Britain because of allegations of the in- volvement of Pretoria in supplying arms to Northern Irish terrorists in return for stolen missile parts. The other reported that the Welsh and Scottish rugby adminis- trators are to permit players to appear in South Africa this summer, almost definite- ly ruining this year's Commonwealth Games as a result. These are no doubt the same people who prop up the saloon bar complaining bitterly about the effect of travelling soccer hooligans on our image abroad.
As I have lambasted British tradesmen in my last two columns, it is only fair that I should tell you about the Russian who booked a house painter and was told he could not come till 1999. He asked what month and was told July. He asked what day and was told the 17th. He asked whether it would be morning or afternoon and was told the morning. He asked whether it could be altered to the after- noon and the house painter wanted to know why. The customer replied, 'Because the plumber is coming in the morning.'
Previous page
