A Spectator's Notebook

To put it mildly, the Queen would hesitate — and continue to hesitate — before dismissing the Prime Minister of the day. She would pause — and pause again. We may be sure that she and her private secretary would not act without extensive consultation, calling in a variety of elder statemen and constitutional authorities.

Perhaps Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General of Australia, took rather more advice than is yet apparent before removing Mr Gough Whalam. What is certain is that he did not consult the Queen, but merely informed her, His private secretary, Mr David Smith (no stranger to members of the Royal Household), rang the Palace in the small hours of Tuesday morning. What he had to say could hardly have come as a complete surprise, since the Queen was already familiar with the events of recent weeks.

Whatever the doubts about his political wisdom, Sir John has acted with constitutional Propriety; he is technically in order. As Governor-General he has the powers of head of State; the authority of the Crown is vested in hint Ironically, he owes his office to the recommendation of the deposed Prime Minister — an office from which he himself can be ejected by no-one except the Queen. Yet he consults neither. Acting within the constitution, he may nevertheless have provoked a constitutional crisis calculated to weaken the role of the monarchy in Australia.

C] An unknown young man — a stranger, still not identified — was knocked down and killed bY a passing car in a Cotswold village. No less than fifty villagers turned out to mourn him at 1.118 funeral in their own old church. A little story to lift the heart, telling us something of the true spirit of England.

°Kindly and well-intentioned though he is, and clever into the bargain, Sir Keith Joseph rerns incurably prone to a crass turn of phrase In his public utterances. Infelicity and indiscretion fall unfailingly from his lips. Will he never learn how to express his views, which are usually Worth listening to, in language more appropriate to someone of his own inner

quality? Is the teacher unteachable in this respect?

Some and perhaps most of his strictures on Britain, to which he has just given voice in an ill-considered interview with the New York Times, can be justified in essence, though he need hardly have directed them to an overseas audience. They are certainly not improved — they lose authority — when accompanied by such expletives as "Socialist slumdom." Expressions like this take away from Sir Keith himself; they embarrass (or they ought to embarrass) members of his own party; and they offend a good many others.

Sir Keith is in need of moderation, not so much in his convictions or in his reading of society as in his words. He is not the best exponent of the broad Conservative interest.

Yet he remains at the head of the so-called Centre for Policy Studies, which he founded with Mrs Thatcher in the summer of last year, a self-sufficient entity supported by funds of its own and not directly related to the party organisation. After Mrs Thatcher's accession to the Tory leadership in February there were many who hoped that the Centre would be amalgamated with the Conservative Research Department, for reasons of economy as well as convenience and cohesion. Lord Thorneycroft, for one, was expecting this to happen — and he is the party chairman. But both still go their own way. For the moment there is no prospect of a merger, only of "more co-operation." It is a strange arrangement, or rather rivalry.

Which of the two is the more important? Which has the greater influence on policy? Sir Keith may go to the Research Department — he may attend its offices — but his inclinations lie strongly with the Centre.

LI President Sadat of Egypt, like the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who preceded him, was received in London not only with courtesy and cordiality but in a spirit that suggests a growing awareness among British ministers of what are — and what are not — rational policies towards the Middle East. Both the Government and the wider Labour movement from which it draws support are at last acquiring a better understanding of the simple truth that sympathy for Israel need not imply and should never be

accompanied by towards the Arab countries. For every reason of humanity, sentiment and self-interest alike, a rightful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a proper object of British policy. If we can contribute to that end we have a duty to do so, as Mr Wilson and Mr Callaghan increasingly acknowledge by their actions.

Not that they are in danger of becoming latter-day Ernest Bevins, in the mould of the sturdy old Arabist who so antagonised the new state of Israel when he was Foreign Secretary under Attlee. But they are — or they seem — less wedded to emotional Zionism (which has after all achieved its prime purpose) than most Labour leaders have been in the past thirty years. They are, of course, working. in reasonably favourable conditions — conditions created in some part by Mr Heath and Sir Alec DouglasHome, whose conduct of Middle East policy was consistently sound. Both are entitled to credit. Who would have thought, after the disastrous Suez adventure nineteen years ago, that we could ever regain respect in the Arab world, above all in Egypt? Yet we have.

Li Another Arab leader has been cutting a less agile figure: King Hassan's attempt to absorb Spanish Sahara 'peacefully' into Morocco has failed signally, and must have serious repercussions. The `marche verte' (green for the Royal family as well as for Islam), was concocted, like many a foreign adventure, to distract the population from home affairs.

At least seven attempts on the King's life have been made in recent years: the best-known resulted not only in the despatch of rebel officers to their deaths from Gibraltar, where they had sought refuge, but also in a bloodbath among suspect military units. King Hassan is now so nervous that he delegates all foreign visits — including one as important as that of the funeral of the King of Saudi Arabia — to his nine-year-old son. The controlled Moroccan Press — rather in the nature of an extended court circular — presented a singular version of the Saharan question: the Hague Court's decision was claimed as a Moroccan victory (in fact it was Spain which accepted the decision in favour of a plebescite); '150 international newsmen' were said to be in Marakesh, when in fact there were only a handful; and the King and the Royal family were said to be at their forward base at Agadir when they were still in Marakesh, occupying several hotels. What was not explained was the presence of a team of French 'advisers'.

Along with the patriotic fervour whipped up by the Press, considerable inducements were offered to people to take part in the march: men of military age would be exempted from the call-up, those of more advanced years would receive special pensions, all marchers would be handsomely insured. The King was to have led the march himself, but thought better of it at the last minute — more worried, perhaps, about the danger behind than in front.

Almost everyone of consequence in public life and affairs passed through William Hardcastle's hands, drawn as they were to the World at One and its related programme (or offspring),PM. Theywill miss him even more than his devoted listeners, for he was such good company, in or out of Broadcasting House — amusing, tolerant, -understanding. Both as a newspaper journalist (he had edited the Daily Mail) and a broadcaster he was in the first rank.

Bill Hardcastle was also shrewd. Before the introduction of commerical radio he was much sought after by the various groups competing for the London news station. They were hoping to strengthen their applications to the Independent Broadcasting Authority by enlisting his services. But he was not to be enticed away from the BBC by promises of directorships or shares, In fact, he was not persuaded that "commercial" radio would ever amount to much in commercial terms, at all events in London. To him the profits so commonly predicted (which have not of course materialised) seemed overblown and fanciful.