Hats off to Enoch
Jo Grimond
The rumpus set off by Mr Powell's remarks about the Queen's Christmas broadcast is absurd. I hope that it is only a ritual uproar raised by the press, for whom the Queen and Mr Powell are always good for a headline. If it is anything more it could be dangerous, for then it will be a fur- ther encouragement to some damaging modern attitudes.
I had thought that since John Grigg was accused of virtually advocating regicide because he made some polite and apposite remarks about how the Queen was presented we had adopted a more sensible attitude towards the Crown. Once inter- viewing Lord Thomson of Fleet I asked if he would ever interfere with the policy of his editors. 'No, certainly not,' he replied, not even apparently if they preached fascism or communism. 'There must be somewhere,' I remarked, 'where you would draw the line.' Well,' dropping his voice reverentially, 'I suppose that I should have to intervene if they criticised the Queen.' This attitude does no one, least of all the Crown, any good. Years ago I myself brought a deluge of abuse down on my astonished head by suggesting that when the top people in government and industry urged wage restraint and even wage reduc- tion they should show an example. I thought everyone would agree. Were not the top people still vestigial Christians? Did not their training enjoin that they should set an example? Did they not subscribe to the obligations of the officer class, the obser- vance of the Golden Rule? Should the right path not be blazed by some reduction even in the very expensive Civil List? I soon found that most of the top people believed that what was good for the worker was not the medicine for them.
The Crown is part of the Constitution, largely paid for directly or indirectly by the taxpayer. Mr Powell seems to be rather pedantic when he claims that ministers are responsible for every public word the monarch utters: but of course it is true that they are responsible for any political pro- nouncements. As, however, the Queen is head of the Commonwealth, empty as some people think that title to be, the question arises, which ministers are responsible for speeches about the Commonwealth? Who- ever is responsible, I cannot see that Mr Powell should not be allowed to comment even if it is the Queen herself giving her own views.
An even more pompous objection is that Mr Powell is estopped because he is a Privy Councillor. It is suggested that he ought to have sent the Queen a private letter. But Mr Powell thinks that the matter is of public importance. He may be wrong. But if that is what he thinks, he is entitled to raise it in public.
One danger which arises from the criticism directed at Mr Powell is that it will accentuate the extraordinary belief that you should never criticise any institution which you admire. This is a result of the bureaucratic disease from which Britain suffers. Even in our present climate of arth- ritic torpor we should be in a sorry state if only those who want to abolish an institu- tion were entitled to comment on it.
The other danger is that a species of Emperor-worship seems to have gripped some of the British. As God exacts less reverence, people feel the need of an alter- native. Lately a Colonel Bengough, ob- viously a splendid figure, decreed that only women wearing large hats with brims would be allowed into the Royal Enclosure at Ascot. The Queen and God are now the on- ly people in whose presence women are ex- pected to wear hats — and not even God, I think, insists on a large hat. At first sight there may seem little harm and some good in this veneration of the Crown. People want something for which they dress up. The Crown gives great pleasure and, though expensive, is unlikely to abuse its position politically, whatever Mr Powell may think.
But the danger is that veneration of the Crown goes too far, so that people use it as a substitute for any ethic. The Crown does not generate any code of conduct to which the nation responds. It cannot take the place of religion. The old obligations of the Establishment are ignored. Today, restraint, particularly in economic demands, action for the common good, practising what you preach, some degree of self-abnegation — these are the tiresome virtues that are needed if we are to en- courage peaceful and beneficial change.
But among our leaders in all walks of life an amoral attitude flourishes. There is little sign of a cohesive code of behaviour ac- cepted by the top people. That would not matter so much were our rulers content. But they are not. In spite of steady rises In salary, perks and pensions, directors de- mand more. It is not a question of 'I'm all right, Jack' but of 'I'm not all right, hold back while I get more'. Hence the cries for less waste and lower wages at the bottom of the scale. If those at the top are insulated against inflation, why not those at the bot- tom? And then it will never be stopped.
Mrs Thatcher, as reported in the Readers Digest, gave a most extraordinary interview at the New Year. She began with a string of bromides and half-truths notable even among the speeches of post-war prime ministers. According to her, the British have industrial ability, enterprise, a world perspective, freedom, the rule of law etc. Why then, she asked, rather reasonably, have we not done better? Answer, massive nanny welfare state, which she claims to be reducing.
In fact, of course, more of our income is taken by her government than ever before. Legislation pours out in an undigested muddle, small businesses groan under regulations, and quangos flourish. She must surely notice the vast public expen- diture which goes on under her nose around the Palace of Westminster, enough to make Mr Livingstone look like Scrooge. Has no one told her that the prices charged by the nationalised industries, having gone uP twice as fast as those of private industry' are now being forced up further by her government? At the bottom end of the scale taxation is higher than ever and now she herself seems to despair of reducing govern- ment expenditure.
To what end then Thatcherism? Com- petition? Ask British Caledonian if they enjoy fair competition. Mrs Thatcher has greatly benefited the top people. She too appears to think that they should have special privileges and be immune from Thatcherism. Under her, she admits, 'the country might in some ways be a chillier, less cosy place'. Indeed it might: but shock- absorbers and rugs are readily available for top bureaucrats (in government and in- dustry). The City is doing well. The oil revenue is frittered away and our capital assets treated as income, but careful house- keeping is recommended for the un- employed. The Civil List goes up four per cent. But anyone who saves more than £5,000 in pre-war terms is taxed on his thrift. A government which behaves like this is a standing committee of hypocrites. But it would be unfair to load it with all the
blame which belongs to the whole Establishment. At the top there is a vacuum and in the rest of the country considerable material prosperity, but a growing gap bet- ween exhortation and example, between ex- pectation and performance. On the verges there are some rather menacing figures waiting their chance. Colonel Bengough may have taken a valuable first step to stif- fen up morale, but he will, I fear, need to go further and operate in other fields.
Previous page
