Notebook
If the confidence debate is anything to go by, the Conservatives are right to be eager that personalities should somehow be kept out of the election campaign. Having boldly taken the plunge and tabled a no confidence motion, Mrs Thatcher was unable to rise to the occasion. One cannot tell why not. She can, at times, inject passion into her Speeches, and it was never more needed than now. But as one colleague pointed out, she would have done better if she had read out one of Paul Johnson's articles. Instead, she impaled herself on percentages. It was no mean achievement of Mr Callaghan, in these disastrous circumstances for his government, to have aroused more enthusiasm With his own supporters than she did with hers. His patronising of Mrs Thatcher was effective. He put on his best display of avuncular self-confidence. He even made some quite good jokes. But, of course, it is all an illusion. The government has no idea What it is up to and does not know where to turn. Its failures were well illustrated by the fact that, because of strike action, there was nothing to eat or drink in the House of Commons. So, if the British electors can manage it for once, they should indeed try to ignore personalities when they come to vote. They should neither be taken in by Mr Callaghan, nor be over-worried by the fact that the Tories have such an improbable leader. There is no point in speculating any more about how on earth she got the job. If She were to be elected, she could not do worse than either of her predecessors in Downing Street.
A colleague who interests himself in such matters is complaining that it is becoming harder to place a bet on political events. Ladbroke's made a book last week on Wednesday's vote of no confidence, but they suspended betting on Saturday. Punters are wondering why they should have done so. The argument, as given to me, is as follows. Ladbroke's last prices were 3-1 the Government to survive: 4-1 on, the Government to fall. If Ladbroke's thought they Were over-committed on the 'fall' they should surely have kept the book open as °pinion drifted the other way. This is what Coral's did, and by Wednesday lunchtime their prices were 6-4, survival; 5-2 on defeat. Admittedly, these are a less enticing Pair of prices — an 11-point margin (for those who understand such things) as against a bare Mon the Ladbroke's figures. Rut at least Coral's changed their prices and went on betting. One other bookie who might have done so is Mr Woodrow Wyatt, Chairman of the Horserace Totalisator Board, and of course a man with some little experience of the House of Commons. But the Tote is not allowed to bet on politics. Is there any good reason for this? When the commercial bookies seem more and more keen to stay away from fields where specialised knowledge — more specialised than their own — might give some punters an edge, they surely ought to be offered some competition.
One of the things that has always attracted me about less 'developed' countries is that their people seem devoid of guilt about doing things which might adversely affect their own health or welfare. Indeed, I doubt if many Indians are even aware, as they puff away at their cigarettes, that smoking could give them lung cancer, even though a warning is in fact printed on all packets. Certainly it does not occur to any Indian that he ought to be wearing a seat belt as he drives his car around at breakneck speed. Such innocence makes for reduced anxiety. Here, of course, things are very different. We have reached a stage at which it is widely regarded as a duty of government to protect people against themselves. Hence the latest attempt to introduce compulsory seat belts. At the risk of appearing obsessed with a triviality, we have consistently opposed this measure in the past. This is because it is not a triviality. It is a measure which, if enacted, would usher in a new and more oppressive era of the 'nanny state'. Last week's free vote in the House of Commons on the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill was especially interesting because it cut not merely across party lines but across the increasingly unhelpful division between 'Right' and 'Left'. It enabled us to identify our would-be nannies. The division list showed that these include a number of so-called Labour 'moderates' — Bill Rodgers (who presented the Bill), the Prime Minister, Bryan Magee, Giles Radice, and Evan Luard. The Conservatives in favour included, not surprisingly, people like Eldon Griffiths and Jill Knight, though it was sad to see Hugh Fraser among them. Mrs Thatcher, prudently (or pusillanimously), abstained, but her associate, George Gardiner, voted for the Bill. What, however, was more interesting and indeed heartening was that such Labour 'extremists' as Michael Foot, Russell Kerr and Dennis Skinner should have gone into the No lobby to show that there is such a thing as the libertarian left. Our congratulations to them.
Whatever one may think about Sir James Goldsmith, he is to be commended for one thing — his courage in starting an entirely new weekly magazine and in putting a great deal of money behind it. Even if the magazine turns out to be no good, and it could very well be excellent, it is better that Sir James should satisfy his journalistic ambitions in this way rather than continue to pursue the elusive goal of obtaining control of an already established publication. The more newspapers and magazines there are, the better. The more jobs there are for journalists (particularly jobs as well paid as those on Sir James's magazine), the greater the prospect of attracting good people to the profession. That much, at the very least, can be said in favour of Sir James's new venture. But justifiable doubts remain over Sir James's attitude to the press. He no doubt believes in press freedom, but his judgment appears to become clouded when his own person or his own interests are involved. His tendency then is to suspect a vendetta. When he was libelled by Private Eye, he issued so many writs that it appeared as if he was trying to close the magazine down, although even our repressive libel laws have no deeper purpose than the protection of reputations. Lately he has become involved in a dispute with the Far Eastern Economic Review over an article which alleged that a press release by one of his companies was misleading to shareholders. His complaint may, for all I know, have been justified, but a telex message from Sir James to the editor of the Review (printed in that magazine) contained the following passage: `It is my belief that the author of your article purposely distorted the facts. As directeur de la publication of France's leading news magazine, L'Express, I sometimes come across similar dishonest and motivated reporting in the press in general. It is one of the diseases of the day and unfortunately brings the profession into disrepute. I would be grateful if you would let me know how best we can remedy the past and how, in future, we can eliminate any further pursuit of personal vendettas by one of your journalists.' It is not for us to enter into the merits of the dispute. What interest us are the attitudes of a man who may soon become a major iorce in Fleet Street.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
