Notebook
T doubt if the electorate either knows or I cares whether Mr Steel is right when he says that food prices have risen by 45 pence in the pound during the past four years of Conservative government, whether Mrs Thatcher is right when she says they have risen by less than one per cent during the past year, or whether they are both right or both wrong. But they may be a little sur- prised that, in her attempt to illustrate as graphically as possible the wonderful cheapness of British dairy products, the Prime Minister should have chosen to in- vest in a slice of Lymeswold. For Lymeswold, that unappetising new creation of the Milk Marketing Board, is remarkable above all for its cost. In my local delicatessen in Hammersmith it is on sale at 72 pence a quarter. In the same shop, Blue Brie (which Lymeswold set out to conquer) costs 69 pence, Dolcelatte the same, Blue Stilton 55 pence, and Blue Cheshire 52 pence. Only Camembert costs as much. So why did she buy Lymeswold? If she wanted to buy a British cheese, why not a slice of decent Cheddar, that poor, abused product of the British countryside whose name has been dragged into disrepute by pirate manufacturers throughout the world? I suppose it is possible that she actually likes Lymeswold.
The Conservative Party Manifesto is a soothing, reasonable document, ad- mirable as much for its omissions as for what it contains. It sensitively avoids con- fronting the reader with those 'issues' most likely to disturb or depress him. Unlike the Labour Party Manifesto, it contains no sec- tions on women, the disabled, young peo- ple, devolution, the media, the Com- monwealth, or the Middle East. And unlike the last Conservative manifesto, which pro- mised a free vote on capital punishment, it does not even contain a reference to the death penalty. Mr Anthony Howard was not fooled by this. He wrote a whole article in last Sunday's Observer explaining why he believes that the death penalty may be restored in the next parliament. His fears are most soundly based. Speaking on the BBC's Nationwide programme last Tues- day, Mrs Thatcher promised another free vote on the subject and reaffirmed her own personal commitment to the cause of hang- ing. When it was last debated four years ago, the death penalty was rejected by 362 votes to 243. But what will happen next time? If there is to be the Tory landslide that Mr Francis Pym fears, it could very well be that the hangers will win. A survey by the Sunday Times published two weeks ago showed that two thirds of the new Tory MPs who would be elected as a conse- quence of such a landslide are very en- thusiastic about hanging. One of them, regrettably unnamed, believed that capital punishment 'should be available for all crimes.' They are clearly a bloodthirsty lot. I will not distress our readers by rehearsing here the reasons why the Spectator does not share the strange national yearning for a return to homicidal retribution as a weapon of the judiciary. In essence, we just think that it is wrong. And if the choice is bet- ween a hanging majority and a hung parlia- ment, I find it hard to know which I would prefer.
T could perhaps, if sufficiently threatened,
come to terms with the major proposals in the Labour Party Manifesto — unilateral disarmament, withdrawal from the Com- mon Market, nationalisation of everything, and so on. But even I have my sticking point. This is Labour's pledge that 'for all media, we will introduce a statutory right of reply to ensure that individuals can set the record straight.' The Manifesto does not elaborate. It does not say under what cir- cumstances this right of reply would be granted, or how it would be enforced. So perhaps as a guide we should turn to the Bill introduced into the House of Commons two years ago by the Labour MP, Mr Frank Allaun. This declared that people who had been lied about or calumniated in a newspaper would be entitled to publish a reply free of charge, of equal length, and in the same position as the offending article. As I wrote at the time, this proposal had nothing to do with the protection of in- dividual reputations; the libel laws already look after those more than adequately. It was clearly designed, as is the promise in the Labour Manifesto, to allow trade unions and other pressure groups to answer their critics in the capitalist press, and to do so at length and as tediously as they like. For the first time in history, editors would be oblig- ed to publish articles over which they had not control; they would not even be allowed to correct the grammar. Is there any editor in Fleet Street prepared to operate such a system? Is there any reader in the land who would put up with it? I hope that the authors of the Labour Manifesto have had a chance to examine the manifesto of the National Front. It includes this proposal 'that all criticised persons and bodies should have the right of reply and the right to correct errors of fact.' Why do two such diametrically opposed political parties share the same urge to interfere with the press?
In October 1975 two Portuguese broad-
casters were dismissed by the World Ser- vice of the BBC for what were described as `lapses of professional performance.' They had, in fact, been broadcasting Communist propaganda to Portugal. Now Mr Vladimir Lanchev, an announcer on Radio Moscow's English language service, has disappeared from his home after being ac- cused of committing 'a personal mistake.' Mr Lanchev had, in fact, been broadcasting anti-Soviet propaganda to the West. Both Mr Lanchev and the BBC's Portuguese employees must have known very well that they were in flagrant breach of the rules of their respective organisations. So why did they do it? Strong political commitment combined, in Mr Lanchev's case, with reckless courage could be the explanation. But another explanation is also possible. To be a foreign language broadcaster for either the BBC or Radio Moscow must be a par- ticularly thankless job. Does anybody ever listen? Does anybody notice what you are doing? The temptation to find out by say- ing something outrageous must at times become overwhelming. If this is the reason for Mr Lanchev's lapse, I only hope he does not pay for it too heavily.
In Wednesday's Daily Express that well- known anti-elitist George Gale stood LIP for the garden gnome. He lamented the fact that these widely-loved little creatures have been banned from the Chelsea Flower show, pointing out that 'garden gnomes have replaced flying ducks as the decorative objects most hated by people with ghastly good taste.' This reminded me of a Par- ticularly good practical joke played on a lady with a celebrated country house garden, much visited and admired by sen- sitive gardeners from all over the world. On one occasion she was visited by a garden designer of renown. He arrived in the even- ing when it was already dark, and it was ar- ranged that after staying the night, he should be taken round the garden in the morning. But during the night some jealous neighbours crept into the garden and This planted gnomes in all the flower beds. Thi cannot have been easy to explain away.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
