Political Commentary
BY HENRY FAIRLIE 0 NE evening during the Conservative Party Conference at Bournemouth I heard a Minister discuss the attitude of the Government to the Burgess-Maclean affair. It Was clear from what he said that, when the subject came to be discussed in the House, the Government would bluster its way through, conceding not a tittle more t.han it gave in the White Paper, From what I have heard from more than one source this week, it is even more clear that this will be the Govern- ment's attitude next week. It will not be in the least surprising if Mr. Macmillan reads a lofty lecture on the dangers of McCarthyism. 'Of course,' I can hear him saying, `if you want to use those methods . . . but we believe that there are certain traditions in this country worth preserving, . . .' and on and on the peroration will roll. 1 hope someone will drum this McCarthyite argument out of court. There never has been—and there is not now—the slightest I y i danger of McCarthyism growing in thisC- country; and those who think that there ---7 is have a dismally poor appreciation of the maturity, good sense and instinctive tolerance of the ordinary people of this country. McCarthy ism was, in almost all its manifestations, a purely American Phenomenon (only American political institutions could have given a single senator such power); and to apply the term with any seriousness to conditions In this country is what an Irish friend of Mine calls 'the greatest codology.'
I am quite sure that, from both sides of the House, the Government will be severely criticised for its handling of the Burgess-Maclean affair. But I am afraid that the criticism will come primarily from the back benches. In a week in Which his reputation has taken a severe knock, it is worth recalling that Mr. Herbert Morrison is one of the very few senior ex-Ministers who have frankly suggested that there is need for a serious Inquiry into the working of the Foreign Office. (His courage Lill 'making this suggestion is all the greater because he could °e held to be in an exceptionally vulnerable position.) For the rest, there is an uneasy silence. Why? At the risk of upsetting another cartload of abuse on my head, I suggest that part of the answer is to be found in a remark which I heard a Prominent Conservative delegate make at Bournemouth. English got to stand by the chaps,' he said. 'Chaps' is a purely Qlglish term. Try to translate it, try to capture in any other Phrase all its nuances. It is impossible. But, get a ticket to the gallery of the House of Commons on Monday and have a look at the chaps defending the chaps. Lastly, why do I go on about ,this matter? For the very serious reason that I think the Foreign Office {flee (whose reputation has been steadily declining since 1914) has suffered a far more serious blow to what remained of its Prestige than is generally realised and that a drastic overhaul of its methods and organisation is needed.
* Three reputations have been affected this week. First, Mr. Caltskell's. Was his full-blooded attack on Mr. Butler a But, in the last resort, the real reason why Mr. Gaitskell's speech shocked was that people have grown accustomed to a mealy-mouthed manner of political dis- cussion. Mr. Gaitskell's accusations— personal? Of course they were personal —were mild compared with those which used to be flung about the House of Commons in the old days—even as re- cently as when the Conservatives were opposing the Labour Government. Poli- tics, if it is about anything at all, is about things which make people feel angry. The housewives of this country felt really angry last Wednesday evening, and would willingly have cracked Mr. Butler over the head with one of their pre-Budget saucepans. Is nothing of this kind of anger ever to be expressed in the House? If not, where is it to be expressed? Politicians are not allowed to debate such issues on either the wireless or television until the passion has gone out of them. So, where are they to debate? Has one always got to buy the News of the World to find out what Sir Robert Boothby has to say about— herrings? Perhaps this is the point of it all—to stop people from discussing important questions, to prevent them from getting worked up over the misdemeanours of their rulers. Personally, I think the House of Commons is only healthy if it reflects (day by day) the fluctuating temper of the country, and for this reason I think Mr. Gaitskell's speech (like some of Mr. Bevan's) blew like a breath of fresh air through the country.
But Mr. Gaitskell of course gave Mr. Butler his chance to stage a Parliamentary comeback on Monday. 1 emphasise that it was Parliamentary; his points were debating points (one of them extremely witty); the rousing of the Conservative mem- bers behind him was the rousing of them to an exciting Parliamentary occasion. Mr. Butler certainly regained some of the ground which he lost on Budget day. But I think the two fundamental points which I tried to make last week still remain true. In the first place, the legend of Mr. Butler has been destroyed; he will now be judged as other men are. This could be a good thing for him if he were now able to build a new reputation on firmer foundations. My own feeling is that there is something lacking, both in his attitude to politics and in his temperament, which may prevent this. Secondly, and this elaborates the last point, there are good reasons for believing that the past few weeks have told on him, have seriously upset him. He was clearly unbalanced after his suc- cessful speech in the House on Monday. This is the crucial factor. I mentioned resilience last week as a vital political quality which Mr. Butler lacks, and those who wish him well will, in the course of the next few months, be looking anxiously for some indication that he possesses it. The third reputation which has been affected this week has been Mr. Morrison's. He might possibly have survived the disastrous speech which he made in the House on Monday. But can he suivive the embarrassment of Mr. Shinwell's support?
Previous page
