A Spectator's Notebook
The agenda for the Tory Party conference was given a quiet send off at Smith Square on Monday morning by Lord Carrington (looking like a worried and tired gnome), Mrs Roy Smith (delicious — there must be more reasons than money and class why the Tories have all the beautiful women in politics) and Sir John Taylor (bonhomous). The trouble with these occasions is that, the super efficient Tories being super-efficient, the last date for the submission of motions was July 20, and the party faithful's feelings about Ulster and the terror bombings cannot therefore be reflected in the bits of paper they send for consideration to Central Office. It is fairly certain, however, that the bombings will be debated, either as an emergency motion, or as a balloted one. The leadership intends to devote an entire morning to economic policy in all its aspects, with no less than three ministerial speakers — Joe Godber, Geoffrey Howe, and the Chancellor — and intends to have a discussion session, not a debate, on overseas policy and defence. Two interesting things were, first, the extraordinarily large number of motions submitted on crime (Mark Carlisle is replying to that, the big gun of Robert Carr being saved for the immigration debate) and, second, the fact that, although last year there were very few Rhodesia motions submitted, this time there are enough to ensure a debate: Sir Alec Douglas-Home has to do his turn again on that. All in all it looks like one of those unpredictable conferences, where the explosive subject is not clear early on. I just wonder if Mr Powell is going to tell conference in the economic debate that he would raise taxation and cut government spending; or if he will try to raise Europe in the foreign policy discussion session.
Chilean truths
Nothing could be sillier than the silly Labour Party desire for the British Government not to recognise the new Chilean. government. Mrs Judith Hart, a most ineffective Minister for Overseas Development in the last Labour administration, told a Labour meeting at the weekend that the National Executive (forsooth!) has decided that the new administration in Santiago should not be recognised. (Mrs Hart was also the chairman of the Labour research group which wants to nationalise some or other twenty-five top British companies.) What right, anyway, has Britain to make decisions about the merits of foreign governments, beyond accepting those in control of their territories? We may all have private views; and express them if we can. But we, as a nation, must not interfere. After all, Mrs Hart has not suggested that we withdraw recognition from Russia. But, then she may not, in her preoccupation with Latin America, have heard about a few chaps in mental hospitals and Siberian holiday camps.
Pretty wet
I must say I found the reaction of even the Tory press in London to the Chilean coup pretty wet. Chile is a country which has very close connections with Britain, as particularly and happily symbolised by the presence here for so long as Chilean Ambassador of Senor Santa Cruz, who left office when President Allende came to power. Allende's wasa pretty vicious regime, and dedicated to the destruction of all that made the country prosperous and relatively stable: the fact that the
President was elected makes absolutely no difference to that analysis of the situation. Most of our press, however, shuddered at the thought of the nasty soldiers taking over to save their country, and intoned that all the other Marxists in Latin America would now forswear democratic politics and take to the hills (which is an excellent place for them). But there is never any possibility of placating the extreme left: if they play the democratic game it is because they think they can win it., They, like Allende, never had the belief the rest of us have in the value of the democratic process as such. And when Chile's lefties began to tear the country up at the roots, the armed services moved in: I think we should throw them a salute, and rejoice at the passing of the first democratically elected Marxist head of state in the Western world. Anyway, the Chilean soldiers seem to me a pretty responsible bunch (rather like General Gursel and his men in Turkey, who overthrew the corrupt regime of IVIenderes and later handed power back to parliament) and this judgment is supported by their evident intention to return to office Eduardo Frie, who was the best President Chile ever had.
Nicotine baby
Some time ago, in this Notebook, I told the story of a girl friend of mine who was pregnant, and had fallen victim to the idiotic bullying of the anti-smoking lobby. I quoted, then, a particularly nasty piece of propaganda issued in Scotland, which misused the findings of the National Children's Bureau's report, From Birth to Seven. Fortunately, my friend refused to stop smoking and, indeed, was advised by a non-crackpot doctor that, if she did so, she would suffer from tension, and thus harm the baby. I promised to report her progress and now (three cheers all round) I am able to announce the birth of a beautiful, healthy and delightful baby daughter.
Providentially, the event occurred on the very day when the NCB published another report, also siding with the anti-smoking
lobby: it will, of course, like its predecessors. be ignored by every right-thinking pregnant woman. This does not, alas, mean that the secret police of the lobby will cease their activities: my friend — who has no connection whatever with journalism — was asked. NI long before she gave birth, whether she 110 ever written anything about smoking in The Spectator: do you suppose that they are asking this question of every pregnant woman in the country? If so, we really must gel together and form a society for the protecti° of smokers: it will, I trust, be led by the tvie strapping sons of the lady who wrote to the BBC's PM programme the other day, aprere of the NCB argument that smoking during pregnancy stunts the growth of children: she smoked, and her two sons are both univers0 ,graduates and well over six feet tall. AnywaY' I am laying down a case for cigarettes for flh 'baby.
Trouble in store
I have never thought much of the effeei tiveness or efficiency of price controls: but,I we're going to have them, they ought to woo' Last week I selected, from a pattern book. rather splendid Shand Kydd wallpaper for bedroom I was about to decorate. I trotted 1W to the John Lewis store in Brixton to buy but found they were out of stock. (It is, by to' way, a separate problem for the home decora' tor, one meriting at least a PhD length dis' sertation, that large stores never have the wallpaper you want in stock: since I must the job as soon as I get the impulse, I alwei therefore choose a paper other than the or want.) From Lewis's I discovered that On' paper would cost £1.85 a roll. I went int"A Oxford Street to continue my search an" visited Selfridge's. Yes, they said, though the), were out of stock (of course) they could order1 it for me, but at E3 a roll. I explained that , could get it cheaper from Lewis's; they said' couldn't; I said I could, and left for anothe1 shop to buy a different paper. I simply cannot understand the reasoning process that a1l0v0 one big store so hugely to increase reasonable prices. But at least my experience wasn't bad as when I went to another large shol' specialising in paints and papers, recentlY buy. a ready-pasted Dulux Vinyl paper for 111), bathroom: I explained what I wanted and 01 assistant told me firmly: "Dulux don't malt', papers, only paints." Patience and temPe' exhausted I marched behind her counter te pick down the paper I wanted. At least the let me buy it.
CatO
Previous page
