Political Commentary
By HENRY FAIRLIE THE dismissal of the Standard workers may not be, the most difficult problem • facing Mr. Iain Macleod, bdt it is the most immediate. In his reply to the unions con- cerned he managed, I think, to convey more than he actually said. The unions had ended their message to the Minister with the characteristic plea that 'something should be done.' This was a cry of the heart from the Nursemaid State, and it is to the credit of Mr. Macleod that he has firmly, even if implicitly, refused to be Nanny to either workers or management. It is by such day-to-day acts that policy is created and I count this a real and significant advance by the Minister of Labour. Moreover, his reply to the unions contained a second point, again made pianissimo but made clearly none the less. Firms have to sack workers for many reasons : because their exports are declining, because the market for their goods is proving more resistant, because of redeployment. and so on. There is no reason, why workers dismissed for the one cause loosely called automation should be entitled to any more wet-nursing than those dismissed for any of the other reasons. Yet this confusion persists in quarters which should know better, and I would not be surprised if Mr. Macleod had addressed his words as much to the leader-writers of The Times and the Manchester Guardian as to the unions which had sought his aid. (It is, impossible to do anything about the Daily Mirror, always wheeling able-bodied men about in prams and asking that something should be done for them.) By the autumn, however, the question of redundancy will have disappeared from the headlines, and will have been replaced by the question of wage rises. It is fully expected by some Ministers that this autumn and winter may bring a real battles over wages—the firsyince the"war. There is some reason for believing that the nationalised industries will be given a little stiffening by the Government. It takes two sides to agree to a wage increase, and there may be some justification for thinking that the Chancellor's recent speech was a Veil light ordering employers to stand firm rather than a distress signal to the unions. One piece of news may be worth passing on. Mr. Macmillan has already achieved his cut of £100 million in Government expenditure and is likely to achieve much more in the year' Mr. Maudling set himself at least one goal when he went to the Ministry of Supply : to keep the Ministry out of the newspapers. And for several months he has succeeded : nn one passing Cleopatra's Needle ever looks up at the first floor of Shell-Mex House and says, 'There sits one of the Pharaohs of British industry.' NO one, that is, until a wed; ago. Then, Mr. Maudling found himself in the headlines and even promoted by Cassandra in the Daily Mirror to a high position in the Establishment. From that room in Shell-Me House came the directive which expelled Mr. Lang from ICJ It is going to be a long time before the excitement about this directive dies down, though those who think that a McCarthy lurks under the genial frame of Mr. Maudling should think again. Two things, I think, should be borne in mind. In the first place, a man does not have to be a Communist (or eves' have a wife who is a Communist) to be a security lisle' , Secondly, the Minister responsible for deciding issues such as this is not bound to provide proof to others nor need he be convinced himself that there is more than a reasonable doubt.
*
One name keeps cropping up more and more as one of the most promising younger Ministers in the Government. n you have political talent there can be no more serious handicaP than to be the son-in-law of Sir Winston Churchill, and for a long time the rise of Mr. Duncan Sandys has been generally attributed to his family connection. But gradually, especially in the past year, he has impressed himself more and more on both sides of the House. No one doubts his efficiency as a Minister—his record both at Supply and at Housing has been remarkably free from criticism and absolutely free frail the charge of ineptness. In the House he has established e localised ascendancy of his own. Equally, at Question Moe he remains entirely unruffled by Opposition attacks. He is not brilliant in retort, but he is commanding in his refusat, to budge from his adopted position. Other Ministers, when under persistent assault from the Opposition, tend to distract the attention by 'going off at a tangent (father-in-law was veil good at that), but Mr. Sandys sticks to his point and iS prepared to make it as often as the Opposition seems to require him to do so. One last point : the Ministers of Mr. Sandys s .generation, who might be expected to find fault with hint (politicians are no more generous about their rivals than other people), are apt, without any prompting, to single him out for especial commendation. Mr. Sandys has a long way to 8' many htirdles to jump, the severest tests to come; but by the time of the next election he may have established an authorita' tive position among the younger generation of Conservatives' At least, it is nice to say that there is someone worth watching'
Previous page
