Spectator's Notebook
rriwo questions have been raised by the I Government's decision to appoint Lord Mel- chett to the chairmanship of the proposed National Steel Corporation—effectively the head of what will be the biggest industrial group in Britain. The first is whether he is up to the job: this can only be proved in the event, but I know of no reason to assume that he will not be. The second is whether, as a Tory and convinced be- liever in private enterprise, he should have accepted anyway. His problem is a microcosm of that of any Conservative government, which deep down tends to be undecided whether it wants the nationalised industries under its control to be great successes or abject failures. (The present Labour government is in precisely the same, ambivalent state of mind about the private sec- tor.) But ultimately the decision must always be to make the best of things, rather than the worst, so long as they persist.
Where Julian Melchett may find himself faced with a difficult conflict of loyalties, however, is not in the control of the steel companies them- selves (which will presumably already be nationalised by the time he assumes office) but in the question of diversification. The Govern- ment's clearly stated intention is that the nationalised steel industry should buy its way into other industries, which must inevitably mean that the chairman of the National Steel Corporation will (unless the Government relents) be actively involved in the further extension of nationalisation to other parts of manufacturing industry. But this is a matter for Julian Mel- chett's conscience alone. I wish him luck what- ever he chooses to do.
The Obstacle Two things have emerged from the Bowden- Smith talks over Rhodesia. One is that real and genuine negotiations took place: that an agreed settlement was desired by both sides. The other is that the attempt has almost certainly failed. When the history of the Rhodesian tragedy finally comes to be written, it may well turn out that the one obstacle that prevented a satisfactory settle- ment was the clutch of gratuitous commitments made by Britain at the 1966 Commonwealth Conference. We now know that before the conference the two sides were moving much closer together than was generally realised. But now that Britain has committed herself in a solemn declaration to an unwise time limit, to a period of direct rule, and to the release of all political prisoners (presumably including Mr Nkomo and the Rev Sithole) before independence, a reconciliation seems impossible. If Mr Wilson is ultimately forced to accept the conclusion reached by Mr Enoch Powell in his unsparing analysis on page 403 of this issue, he will have only himself to blame.
Frozen Democracy As I write. the Cabinet is still apparently unable to decide whether or not to invoke the order in council necessary to enforce the notorious Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act—the bit that makes the wage and price freeze compulsory. But the argument is not, alas, that it might be a good thing to put this monstrous piece of legislation into cold storage for good. It is about whether or not it mightn't be more prudent to wait until next week's Labour party conference is over before bringing the so-called 'voluntary' phase of the freeze to an end. In other words, having already by a peculiarly shabby manoeuvre prevented the House of Commons from adequately discussing and voting on this unprecedented legislation, the Government is now reluctant to provoke a full and informed debate on the subject at its own party conference. Isn't this a somewhat odd way for a party that prides itself on its devotion to democratic methods to behave?
Gravitas, please
`The verdict of Mr Epstein's inquest is clear and disturbing. The [Warren] report has given us the truth . . . but not the whole truth . . . the quest for tranquillity triumphed over the quest for facts.' Thus R. A. Cline in these columns last week, writing on Mr Edward Jay Epstein's book Inquest on the Warren Commission and the murder of President Kennedy. Other commen- tators took a similar view. Lord Devlin wrote the following Sunday in the Observer that `Mr Epstein's Inquest . . is balanced, clearly and carefully composed, short and directed to a point . . . unless Mr Epstein can be answered effec- tively, the possibility that Oswald had an accomplice cannot be disposed of as neatly and conclusively as the report does.' The next day The Times, in a first leader, argued that in the light of Mr Epstein's book the Warren Commis- sion ought to be sent back to produce 'a supplementary report on the questions that have now been raised.'
I quote all this to indicate that Mr Epstein's is a serious book—although obviously not the last word on the subject—to be taken seriously. If you still don't believe me, read it yourself : it also happens to be one of the most enthralling books to have come my way for a long time. There were, however, two reactions to it of a very different kind indeed. In the Sunday Tele- graph. reviewing Inquest and another book, Professor A. L. Goodhart concluded 'there seems to be no reason why the present books should not be included' in the general category of 'transparently malicious or ignorant' attacks on the Warren Report. And in the Daily Mail the normally sane Mr Bernard Levin presented Mr Epstein's book as one of those which purport to show that Oswald was either innocent or the tool of a conspiracy (in fact it purports to show neither) presumably in order to justify a tirade as intemperate as its four-column jumbo-sized heading 'Fools, knaves, muck-rakers' would indicate.
Now, 1 must be one of the few people who believe it doesn't matter much who killed Kennedy. My universe wouldn't crumble if I were to discover tomorrow that the President had been murdered by a Communist negro jew, a homosexual Cuban Klansman, or Lee Harvey Oswald---with or without the help of Batman and Robin. I'm much more interested in the question of how the Warren Commission set about finding the truth. But what worries me most of all is the hysteria of those non-establishment defenders of the establishment line, Messrs Goodhart and Levin. What's the point of having an establishment if it can't behave with gravitas and dignitas as well as pietas? Boys, you're letting the side down.
Jo's Boys I'm not at all sure that the Young Liberals (their leader, Mr George Kiloh, writes on page 407 of this issue) are a good thing for the Liberal party, but I'm certain they're an excellent thing for politics as a whole. Of course they went off the rails from time to time, notably in their syndicalist approach to industry--the Liberals have always suffered from a lack of practical experience in this field—but they can hardly be blamed for the irresponsible resolution on Rhodesia, which was sponsored by the party executive itself. They were absolutely right to reject the utterly backward-looking resolution on NATO; and even if their enthusiastic support for devaluation (a most satisfactory outcome) may not have been matched by a full understanding of this hideously difficult topic, the same can be said of those who opposed the motion.
What the young Liberals represent is the growing dissatisfaction with the policies of the consensus among the politically conscious members of the younger generation. They are dissatisfied not because they are a bunch of crypto-Communists, as the crasser sort of political journalist would have us believe, but because they can see where the consensus has got us, in foreign policy and economic policy alike. They are the generation who, in the United States. represent the hard-core support for Senator Robert Kennedy. In this country we have no Bobby Kennedy to harness and discipline this vital political force: Jo Grimond, bless his heart, can hardly provide an adequate substitute. But politicians of both major parties ignore this new political phenomenon at their peril.
Vice a I'anglaise
Miss Dale (witness in the Mr 'A' case at the Old Bailey last week): He didn't want ordinary sex but wanted to whip me. I was disgusted.
Mr Vowden (counsel for the prosecution): Why didn't you just get up and walk out?
Miss Dale: I did not want to seem rude to Miss Jones [her hostess] and I was having tea at the time.
NIGEL LAWSON
Previous page
