Political commentary
Sir Geoffrey's little package
Colin Welch
Cir Geoffrey Howe's autumn economic
statement was described by Mr Shore as `empty of hope and promise', as 'depress- ing' and 'cosmetic'. The Times's front page rang forth: 'Howe's autumn measures disappoint supporters.' The Guardian leader found them 'footling'. Good, ex- cellent, I mused: could hardly be better. These judgments of course require inter- pretation. By 'hope and promise' is meant false hope and vain promise. 'Depressing' means sober or realistic. 'Footling' and `cosmetic' mean much the same thing: that the changes were modest and cautious, not grandiose, daft and requiring swift reversal. Measures which 'disappoint supporters' ac- tually disappoint precisely those who by temperament or outlook are incapable of supporting Sir Geoffrey. Apart from the Left, I mean people like Sir Ian Gilmour, who regards lower inflation as 'deflation' and calls for instant 'reflation' to remedy both.
Headline-writers often proceed on the assumption that MPs (and voters) are more or less children, greedy and feckless, 'disap- pointed' by any Chancellor who, mindful of the future, does not produce a cor- nucopia of unearned goodies from every sack, sleeve, aperture, orifice and — yes, if not mislaid — trouser pocket. Yet there is an increasing number which respects and feels safe with Sir Geoffrey's stodgy and good-tempered rectitude, and would be `disappointed' if he suddenly turned into a sort of Keynesian Cheeryble. He reminds me of Sir Kingsley Wood: and only those who know nothing of me or Sir Kingsley, or of what Sir K. stood for, will think some in- sult intended.
One discordant note was struck by the CBI, which found the statement 'im- aginative' — a word which always spurs the prudent to buy Confederate banknotes or Krugerrands. I nervously re-read the state- ment, but could find nothing in it to justify such opprobrium. If there be any little cloud on the horizon, it is engendered by suspicions of more inflation on the way. Mr Roy Jenkins mentioned them; Sir Geoffrey pooh-poohed them. But Mrs Thatcher herself did point out that demand, so far from being low, was three per cent up, and the money supply is by at least one measure running at some 12 per cent. Sir Geoffrey aims at five per cent inflation throughout next year. That is too high. If it were higher still in 1984, that would be a disaster.
The Queen's Speech was also described as thin and disappointing. Thin it surely was; and, as in very watery soups, it was all the easier to peer into its depths and note the presence or absence of certain ingredients
which, according to the cookbook sup- posedly favoured by Mrs Thatcher (Tante Marguerite, or Tante Maggi?), are respec- tively disastrous or essential to the brew. One can hardly help wondering how many sous-chefs are adding this or subtracting that, either surreptitiously while her back is turned, or in return for graciously allowing her to add a bit more pepper or reduce the wetness or remove the odd smelly fat chunk of stale inflationary nonsense. To what ex- tent even now, post-Falklands, does she rule the roast?
First the subtractions. Not a word about rates reform (a subject I thought dearer to her heart than mine) or about trade union secret ballots. Has she lost her enthusiasm, or are colleagues hanging onto her skirts? About ballots, she said, 'there is plenty of time yet'. Not perhaps if the Conwy tunnel gets in the way. Secondly, the very rum in- gredients which do continually appear and re-appear in her pot. I don't mean rum in any objective sense: far from it. Most of them wouldn't be rum at all in a potage concocted by Wilson, say, Callaghan or Heath. But very rum nonetheless in view of her known or supposed predilections predilections which have surely done her less harm and more good than is suggested by colleagues who can't share them.
Does she really attack 'great importance' to the United Nations? Nice when they sup- port you, to be sure; nice when the Skib- bereen Eagle supports you; but, if they don't, whoever lost a moment's sleep? And overseas aid — money transferred, as Prof. Bauer puts it, from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. Is she really committed to 'a substantial programme', or have others committed her? Does the Iron Lady fervently 'seek an improvement in East/West relations ... harmed by events in Afghanistan and Poland'? Might she not prefer those who did the harm to put it right first?
She promises a new youth-training scheme at a cost of more than a billion, and other schemes to combat youth unemploy-
ment. Yet in her heart must she not wonder what on earth the schools have been up to? Must she not further wonder how much youth unemployment is caused by excessive public expenditure, and whether it is thus likely to be cured by more such expert' diture? 'Improved and better co-ordinated marketing' of food and agricultural pro- duce sounds — indeed is — more like another quango than anything likely to en- thuse her or her beloved Kipling. Nor is she the sort of woman normally fooled by laws imposing equal pay or, in other words, removing from women the right to under- cut. Let us hear no talk, cried Michael Foot, about equal pay meaning unemploY- ment for women. There may be talk or not; he may hear it or not; but unemployment for women there will surely be. Of course Mrs Thatcher has been allowed in return for her complaisance all sorts of little outings, notably in the field of privatisation — hideous word. One final huge mystery remains — her commitment to 'the resumption of devolved govern- ment' in Ulster. Opinions differ as to how and why the amazing Ulster shambles arose. Why did Mr Prior do it? Did arntn- tion spur him on to 'do something' and render him deaf to warning? Might not ant" bition more wisely have counselled modesty and caution? Why did she let him do it? Is!! because Ulster bores her? Surely not. Din she want to give Mr Prior enough rope to hang himself? Again, surely not, with 3 whole province likely to be hanged with Mr Prior. As Mr Powell mordantly pointed out, the punishment for this folly has been amazingly swift, but it has fallen on the In- nocent rather than the guilty. Was she simply overruled by her colleagues? If so; will she continue to be as troubles mount• The answers to all these questions are fascinating in themselves. They are even more so for the light they throw on her rela- tionship with the party she now leads and to which she is at present absolutely indispen- sable. Suppose she became less indispen- sable? Suppose circumstances arose, a hung parliament for instance, in which shesud; denly became dispensable, even a liability? How much real, natural and reliable loYaltY could she then command?
As I watched the Queen's Speech debate, I became aware of two remarkable men' i
who must be passionately interested n the answers to all these questions, and not from any friendly feeling towards her. One vva. Dr Owen, surely with Mr Powell the best noteless speaker in the House, far more for' midable on his feet than between bo°ic covers. The other was Mr Heath, onlY a yard or two from Mrs Thatcher, silentci brooding and menacing like an unexploa.e bomb. Surreptitiously I extended the firtis..1 and fourth fingers of my left hand, clencli ed the second and third: the Italianate Will ed whether I had the precaution rightile
Incidentally, the Queen is going to. Cayman Islands. Has she the power to fn" out what, if anything, De Lorean has stash ed away there?
Previous page
