Political Commentary
BY HENRY FAIRLIE IT gets curiouser and curiouser. It now seems certain that the changes in the Government are going to be postponed even beyond the reassembly of Parliament. At least, from two separate sources, and from one which should know, has come the hint this week that the changes are likely to take place nearer Christmas than the Conservative Party Conference. But, whether they are announced in October, November or Decem- ber, whether Sir Anthony Eden chooses Guy Fawkes Day (that he is waiting for November the Fifth seems to be the only possible explanation of his delays and certainly the choice of it would make a good headline story from Downing Street) or St. Andrew's Day, there is no doubt that by his procrastina- tion he has stored up a deal of resentment amongst his followers which will not easily be dispersed. If he had made up his mind at the beginning of the recess that there were to be no changes in the Government before the reassembly of Parlia- ment this could easily have been made known, and the damag- ing speculations of the past three months could have been avoided. The Prime Minister should be in no doubt that damage has been done. Junior Ministers and back-benchers are only human, and when one recalls how many times Sir Anthony Eden lost his patience with Sir Winston Churchill for not making up his mind to go, it is not surprising that some Con- servative tempers are now becoming a little frayed. Moreover, the feeling which everyone concerned with politics inevitably has—that the present Government is just .a makeshift team— prevents any serious discussion of long-term policies.
The most interesting thing about the report on Labour Party organisation which has been produced by Mr. Harold Wilson's sub-committee and which the National Executive Committee has now published is that it is printed in what must be very nearly the smallest type which the Labour Party's printers could find. I am not the only person who thinks that this is Mr. Morgan Phillips's way of coming back. He has made the whole thing so unreadable that it is likely to remain unread. The report has interesting points, but its real controversial interest lies in the struggle which it threatens to precipitate between certain personalities, especially between Mr. Morgan Phillips and Mr. Wilson and his supporters—by no means all Left-wing--on the National Executive Committee. The Labour Party clearly has a genuine problem here. There is a failure in the distribution of functions at the centre which cannot help being reflected in lack of organisation at lower levels. It seems likely that the discussion of the report will be the only lively feature of the conference at Margate—lively in that it will supply the Labour correspondents with copy—but it is hard to believe that the country as a whole is at all interested in the question. The remaining interest of the conference will be that it will show an increase of Mr. Gaitskell's power and a decline of Mr. Bevan's power, and at the end Mr. Wilson will still be there, so that those who do not mind having their names associated with his may support him as the saviour of the Left/ the Labour Party/ the Universe.
The discussion of the attitude of certain popular newspapers to the Burgess-Maclean flight continues in the correspondence columns of this journal. I wish only to comment on the idea of the 'Establishment' which Lady Violet Bonham Carter regards as 'a fiction,' Mr. Randolph Churchill as a bee in my bonnet and Mr. David Astor as a libellous 'smear.' I would ask Lady Violet Bonham Carter and Mr. David Astor to read what I have written during the past two weeks more carefully than they seem to have done. At no point did I attribute to them, or to other members of the 'Establishment,' either improper motives—indeed I went out of my way last week to suggest that their motives were not only proper but such as all of us might have responded to—or the more specific motive of wishing to protect actual or presumed traitors. I merely suggested that, as always in this country, there is a nexus of official and social relations which enables certain people to exercise more influence than other people can. I find nothing sinister in this. I believe that it is desirable that something like the 'Establishment' should exist, because it prevents even worse influences from operating. But I merely wished to make the point that the tentacles of the 'Establish- ment' seem to me—and not only tq me—to stretch farther today than ever before. Because of this, Lady Violet Bonham Carter, by simple and natural means, helped to create the feeling that it was wrong to inquire too closely into the whole affair, and especially to question Mrs. Maclean. It has turned out that she (not the popular press) was wrong. The'spread of the 'Establishment's' influence is due partly to the increase in the number of official and semi-official bodies— I regard the patronage exerted by bodies such as the Arts Council, the BBC, the British Council and so on with extreme suspicion, especially because it is becoming increasingly difficult for young writers and artists to cock a snook at them— and partly to the apparent diminution in the formal powers of the 'Establishment' which has made people less suspicious of the actual power and influence which its members exercise. It is Mr. Randolph Churchill's letter which interests me. (Mr. Connell, if he wishes to understand the genius of the 'Estab- lishment,' need go no farther than read the cry of pain which was uttered in a leading article on the Burgess-Maclean affair in a contemporary two weeks ago.) Mr. Churchill spends most of his time conducting assaults on the 'Establishment.' The reason why, in this specific case, he has rallied to the 'Estab- lishnient's' side would, I think, provide a clue to its nature'. (In any case, I never suggested that Lady Violet Bonham' Carter had had any contact with Lord Beaverbrook, or that any pressure she brought to bear was successful.) But another clue was provided by Mr. Sparrow, the Warden of All Souls', in his letter which was published last week. As Sir Robert Boothby has pointed out this week, that letter confirmed most of what I said. All Souls' is one of the centres of the 'Establish- ment.' All that is needed now is a piece of homely piety from Mr. A. L. Rowse and the circus will be complete.
There is, however, one factual answer I would like to give to Mr. Sparrow. I was careful to say in my piece two weeks ago that it is the traditions as well as the methods of recruitment of the Foreign Office which determine its character. I have not his faith in the present methods of recruitment. But even if I had, I would still answer that it is what happens to the young men once they get inside the Foreign Service which is important.
Previous page
