McALPINE: THE VICTIMS SPEAK

. . . even if it's only 'no comment. Sarah Whitebloom offers them the

right of no reply

LORD ARCHER is writing; he certainly cannot be disturbed. It was all too obvious as far as his secretary was concerned. The literary endeavours of the former deputy chairman of the Conservative party could not possibly be interrupted for a comment on those of a former colleague — even though Lord Archer is mentioned in them. Although it is somewhat ungenerous to describe as a 'mention' Lord Archer's appearance last week in the Times's seriali- sation of Lord McAlpine's memoirs of his years as Tory party treasurer: Lord Archer is dealt with.

Among other comments about his for- mer co-worker, Lord McAlpine — who has joined Sir James Goldsmith's Referen- dum party — opined, 'I only hope for the sake of Britain that no politician, hearing only good of the man, mistakenly gives him again a job of any political conse- quence. To do that would once again put both party and nation in considerable jeopardy.'

Eventually, Lord Archer surfaced and uttered two words which have seldom been heard from him on any subject, least of all the subject of himself, 'No com- ment.' Apart from that response, a spot of retaliatory name-calling is really the only avenue open to the victims of the new brand of political memoir as championed by Lord McAlpine. And that could be a very risky business, likely to backfire and to increase sales of the offending work.

Lord Archer is, of course, just one of many of the former Tory treasurer's ex- colleagues who are treated to his insights `George, how do you feel about trans-terrestrial adoption?' into their characters. Lords Howe and Parkinson, Baroness Young, John Guiri- mer, Sir Edward Heath, Norman Lamont and Tristan Garel-Jones also benefit, as do John Major and Michael Heseltine.

Some of the remarks — such as those above about Lord Archer — could well have found their author threatened with a libel writ had he been a journalist or biog- rapher. But, surprisingly enough, only one of Lord McAlpine's targets has so far proved willing to take him on. According to Lord McAlpine, the Prime Minister him" self had asked him to approach a foreign businessman — reportedly the Greek ship' ping tycoon, John Latsis — for money. This was not run-of-the-mill personal abuse, to be ignored. When Lord McAlpine came up with a solid assertion in his book, it demanded an answer. Mr Major had to say something about the charge and he did — he denied it. On Newsnight last Wednesday, the Prime Min- ister maintained, 'I did not ask Alastair McAlpine to approach anyone on behalf of the Conservative party.' (Mr Major did not, however, make any response to Lord McAlpine's somewhat less solid or

cant accusation that he used to pretend to be a pair of curtains at Chequers.) It is the same story with Lord McAlpine's other victims. The friends and colleagues he deals with suddenly found themselves too busy — no doubt with their version of Lord Archer's creative process — to respond to the memoirs.

Mr Garel-Jones, the former Foreign Office minister, gave the fullest response; via his secretary. In the memoirs, Lore McAlpine says of Mr Garel-Jones (then an assistant to the Tory chairman, Lord Thor- neycroft): No one, including Thorneycroft, knew what he was supposed to be doing. In fact, he did nothing except listen and file away words and actions for later use. He liked to get himself involved with other people's business.

Mr Garel-Jones's secretary said, `He is not prepared to enter into any discussion of it, save to say that Lord McAlpine is a very sad figure.' Having maintained a steadfast silence following Lord Tebbit's onslaught in The Spectator (Books, 1 March), Michael Hes" eltine entirely resisted the temptation to comment on the McAlpine memoirs. According to an aide, 'He doesn't talk about colleagues or ex-colleagues.' (So his memoirs should be worth reading.) Lord McAlpine, however, does not live by this code and describes the Tory deputy, leader in unflattering terms — compare" to himself: He is so different from me, he is a maker of sets . • , a checklist politician. For myself, if find a thing of beauty, I want more of the same thing. I am not remotely interested .nle making sets that include the boring and "'If banal just because they happen to be part

° that set.

The Environment Secretary, Mr GUM mer, came in for the most sustained attack, according to last week's Times excerpts. And this was clearly not a passing fancy on the part of the former party treasurer, but a long-standing grudge. Lord McAlpine confesses that he went as far as to write to John Major, when he came to power, warning him about the Cabinet minister, saying, 'He is not the sort of person that You would risk going for a walk in St James's with let alone the jungle.' Mr Gummer's crime was apparently not help- ing to save Cecil Parkinson over the Sara Keays affair.

Despite the onslaught, Mr Gummer's office was confident on Friday that he would not be available at any point that day or over the weekend to make any response. 'I just don't think it's going to be possible . . . although it's not necessarily the case that he wouldn't want to say any- thing,' said an assistant, possibly to empha- sise that Mr Gummer had not been cowed by the attack.

Aside from Lady Thatcher, few of Lord McAlpine's former friends and colleagues appear to emerge unscathed from his memoirs. Perhaps in the interest of bal- ance, even Lord Parkinson, who appears to be the reason for his wrath against the Environment Secretary, gets the McAlpine treatment:

Cecil Parkinson does not intend to gossip or Pass on remarks made in confidence. It is a fault that he cannot help, telling people sto- nes that are interesting or funny. In truth, he trusts people more than he should.

This much is evident. Nevertheless, the former party chairman had nothing to say about the work of his confidant and defender. Total lack of interest was his mode of escape. According to his secre- tary, he hadn't read the book. She even Comic Relief doubted whether he had read the Times excerpts.

Just as few politicians leapt to defend themselves in the face of side-swipes in Alan Clark's Diaries, there is silence from Lord McAlpine's casualties. The truth is that there is little that can ever be said in dignified response to personal observa- tions. What could Kenneth Clarke have said to Mr Clark's description of him as a `podgy puffball'?

There appears little of substance to respond to in Lord McAlpine's memoirs — aside from the Latsis story — although he must know more than he is telling about Tory party finances. The remarkable way in which they were turned round real- ly would be the political disclosure of the year, as the Times serialisation was billed. His very choice of title, Once a Jolly Bag- man, indicates that Lord McAlpine may recently have been eschewing Lord Archer's works in favour of those of the American noir writer, James Ellroy. 'Bag- man' is a term of abuse in the United States, levelled at those carrying out semi- legal political fund-raising. Judging by last week's excerpts, the McAlpine memoirs concentrate on sneer- ing comments and ancient anecdotes rather than revelations. They include the tale of Norman Lamont's black eye and the fact that Lord Archer won a huge libel action over untrue allegations about him and a prostitute. Neither tale, of course, required any response.

There is a considerable difference between Mr Clark's work and Lord Mc- Alpine's; the former party treasurer does break quite new ground in this respect. In the tradition of political observers such as Richard Crossman and Chips Channon, Mr Clark's caustic comments were made con- temporaneously, in his diary. They can be taken very much in context and appreciat- ed as daily musings. After all, who has not thought such things of people they know? Political memoirs, however, have been rather less exciting. For obvious reasons they have tended towards the considered view and tried to be more statesmanlike.

Lord McAlpine pursues a mixture of the two methods, using his memoirs to settle old scores. His attacks are of quite a different order to those of Mr Clark because they have been written in cold blood and with the benefit of consideration. So it is for different reasons that this style of abuse does not elic- it any response. It is a strategy of which we are likely to see a lot more (Neil Kinnock has already indicated that he will be pursu- ing such a policy with his account of parlia- mentary life), but it is unlikely to win the authors a place in literary or political histo- ry. Acid remarks appear a lot less appetising when dished up cold.