Political commentary

What sort of man?

Colin Welch

What do you make of Michael Heseltine at Defence? It depends on what sort of man you think he is and what sort of job you think he's got. Handsome as he is, ap- pearances are certainly against him. His good looks are those of the Knave of Diamonds or perhaps of Lambert Simnel or Perkin Warbeck, more likely to set fans moving in a Trollope drawing-room than to terrify a formidable general, friend or foe. Beside the mild dishevelled fanatics of CND he looks like Bertie Stanhope. His beautiful hair alone should disqualify. But hair can be more easily modified than, say, the record of Mr Healey's Communist past, which ought perhaps to have disqualified even more.

It is usually put about, incidentally, that Mr Healey joined the Communist Party before the war because it alone was ready to stand up against Hitler, and that he left it very soon. Odd then, to find him in Susan Crosland's excellent book* 'still on the Communist side' in 1940, when we were at war with Hitler and Stalin was his ally, In 1945 Crosland thought at first Healey still a Communist, then that he had apparently `swung away' from the CP into a state of incoherent flux. Unless memory errs, Mr Healey after the war made one or two very odd speeches in which he regretted that France and Britain had not undergone the social revolutions which, under Russia's benign guidance, had transformed Eastern Europe. Did his enthralment last longer than he now supposes?

It is all very confusing and, we must hope, no longer relevant. It springs nonetheless unbidden to mind when Mr Healey rudely compares Mr Heseltine to a footman and an ambitious public relations man. There are worse things to be than footmen, and hair is more easily cut than history. I doubt moreover if Mr Heseltine said anything as silly in 1945 (or since): he was only 12 at the time.

Behind the Heseltine appearance, what sort of man? A confident ambitious loner, beholden to none save himself, formidably energetic, absorbed in detail, even trivia; fascinated by nuts and bolts, better at do-it- yourself than delegating, taking or interfer- ing in decisions right down the line, not given to or impeded by reflection or prin- ciples. (It is characteristic of him that he is said to have known exactly how many species of birds there were to see in Tobago, and how many on holiday there he had ac- tually seen.) As a Minister, it seems, he is

*Tony Crosland, Cape £10.95. (omitted from last week's article),

more of a managing director than the normal Olympian chairman. The right way to do things? Mrs Thatcher presumably thought so when she set him up first as a resented example to other ministers and then at Defence. Effective? Tastes and judgments differ. The record at Environment is am- biguous.

He cut his official staff: good. He an- noyed all the local authorities — good? but annoyed the best more than the worst by perversely penalising the frugal more than the spendthrift: bad. Once he urged local authorities to save, save, save; then it was spend, spend, spend. Can he have been right both times? As the Times drily com- mented, 'The rate support grant system stood in urgent need of reform when he ar- rived. It got it. As he leaves it stands in urgent need of reform' — capable, methodical Mr King, please note. Mr Heseltine's attempts to revive Liverpool are judged disastrous. A lot of publicity, some might plead for him, got relatively cheaply. But he would have spent even more if he could. The whole episode suggests a temperament more open to sterile gim- mickry and to throwing money at problems than is appropriate anywhere near Mrs Thatcher: bad.

And what is now his job? One senior MP implied that he hasn't really got one. Thanks to Sir John Nott's thinking and re- thinking, all the big decisions have been taken. It only remains for the new man to defend, justify and whoop them up. I do not see how he can properly be reduced to such a humble role.

First, he has to tackle the problem of defence expenditure, rising annually by far more than the three per cent in real terms allotted to it. I have recently heard figures of seven per cent for next year, rising soon to 10 or 15 per cent. Is it out of control? (Expenditure on the Falklands alone, which I haven't seen published, is now expected to amount to at least £2.8 billion over the next five years!) Such extravagance can hardly be allowed to go on.

Nigel Lawson, one unremarked dark horse in the Defence stakes, would assured- ly have tried to axe it and might have perish- ed in the ensuing nuclear holocaust. Other contestants, sliding happily into the defence chiefs' snug pockets, wouldn't even have tried. Peter Walker would probably have become a fanatical defence spender. And Heseltine? Well, the risk is that he may seek to counter the defence chiefs' well- publicised disapproval by showing that he is at heart 'one of them'. But what he really is at heart is a manager, and management

happens to be what is needed at Defence to cut fat and waste. We must keep our fingers crossed.

Secondly, it surely is perverse to assert that all the big decisions have been taken. It is as absurd as leaving a chess game in the mid- dle, bequeathing to your successor a com- plete list of all the moves he must make to win. Defence does not stand still: it is in constant flux. What was absurd, un- necessary or vital yesterday may be exactly the opposite tomorrow — or rather, not tomorrow, but 10, 20 or more years ahead. The Trident programme is meant to start in the mid-1990s, to go on for 15 years and to last until well into the next century! If, as I suspect, it offers more bang than we need for more bucks than we can afford, then here is a decision which, taken, must be un- taken. If so, far better untaken by a sane Tory government than a daft Labour one, which would be totally uninterested in the cheaper and more effective options which would then open up.

To see one's way clearly through such baffling and remote complexities, much more than managerial skills are needed: cool logic, a readiness to question establish- ed wisdom, to extrapolate boldly while leav- ing always ample room for the overlooked and unforeseen; the power to order priorities while remaining flexible, to reflect and reason far beyond the terra firma of what is now known or even guessed. Has Mr Heseltine these qualities? Not obviously.

Thirdly, it is his job to win the nuclear debate, at present going by default. If it were just a question of raising a pro-nuclear rabble, we know he could do it — and howl — perhaps by ranting, vulgar and ag- gressive rhetoric which would repel exactly those troubled spirits now wondering whether there is something in CND after all. It is useless for him to address himself either to CND itself or to the instinctively pro-bomb Tory mass. No, he has to pitch the debate on the loftiest plane, countering the CND intellectuals and pseuds at their own presumed level. He must deploy sober- ly, sincerely and persuasively, reasoned arguments which must be intelligible at least to himself if not to all. They must convince even those waverers who can't quite unders- tand at least that brains and feeling are not all on one side, and that there is a high, logical, Chalfont-type case as well as a 'gut' case for the deterrent. His responsibilities are awesome. He has to create among all in- telligent responsible people a trust and con- viction that he is a proper person to discharge them. Others would then take note.

For all this he will need inter alia thoroughly to understand not only his own case but also his opponents' and what moves them — he will need,

in two words, sympathy, imagination. Has he these qualities? Not obviously. We must hope for the best, and not less if Mr Heseltine is, as Julian Critchley thinks possible, Mrs That- cher's eventual successor. He has much to prove.