Another Spectator's Notebook
Palpitations over Tony Barber's appointment to chair the Conservative Advisory Committee on Policy — though without the title either of deputy leader of the party or Deputy Prime Minister — have renewed speculation about the imminence and scope of the Great Reshuffle. I can't say I am myself very much impressed by the Barber appointment. True, the Advisory Committee was once the hub of a powerful system of policy review through Edward Heath's famous Policy Groups; but that was when the Leader himself took the chair; and it was quite some time ago. Under Reggie Maudling the Committee kept things ticking over, but it would hardly make a power base for anybody. Nor, I suspect, will the Chancellor have all that much time to spare for those elaborate get-togethers in Central Office. I also suspect that the Prime Minister was well aware of all these factors when he made the Barber appointment: he suffers quite as much as did Harold Wilson from the fear of allowing any potential rival to create a power base within the Government or the Party. There is, however, a matter for serious regret in all this; it is the decline into desuetude of the policy revision and research system Heath originally created and which, by and large, served the Conservative Party very well. Though it was generally believed, after 1970, that the new Prime Minister was determined to prevent the re-emergence of that dangerous gap between the Government and the Party which marked the twilight of the Macmillan years, and that he would keep the policy review system going, this has been done in only the most desultory way.
Rippon redux
No man awaits the Great Res'huffle with more anxiety than Geoffrey Rippon. While there are various hopefuls — notably Geoffrey Howe — outside the Cabinet anxious to get in, Rippon is in the Cabinet anxious to get a job, now that the arduous European negotiations have been long concluded. He is said to be both cross and worried that he did not become overseer of the Ugandan Asian resettlement programme for, though it might have damaged his right wing base, it would have given him a real job to do. Alas, after the fiasco of his lightning trip to East Africa, 'he has been shunted aside and worse still Robert Carr has made a vigorous start in tackling the problem. There is the job Rippon would like — that of Foreign Secretary — which he won't get, even if Sir Alec were to depart; and the job of Lord President and Leader of the House, which he is unlikely to find palatable, and even less likely to be good at. Otherwise there is not much going, and Rippon must be uneasily aware that he has never found all that much favour with his boss: after all, the Market negotiations were fairly straight forward, and all the major moves were made by the Prime Minister himself: the job Rippon was moved from — Secretary of State for Trade and Industry — was much, much bigger and grander. Altogether, then, not a happy prospect for Geoffrey.
Alec translated
It is commonly said that the departure of the Foreign Secretary would be the signal for a big move around of the Cabinet membership. Even aside from the fact that Sir Alec is — especially with the Ugandan Asian crisis on hand — indispensable, as well as perfectly fit, I doubt it. If Sir Alec returned to his rhododendra — which, he has been heard to say, have been in re markable bloom this year it would make only one place, albeit a substantial one. Unless the Prime Minister were going to get rid of, at least, Gordon Campbell, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and John Davies as well, there would not be a great deal of scope, unless perfectly competent ministers were sacked, which seems exceptionally unlikely. One intriguing, if madcap, idea I have heard, however, is that Sir Alec — who was Minister of State at the Scottish Office from 1951 to 1955 — should take Gordon Campbell's job; preside over the introduction of a Scottish Representative Assembly; and remain on hand to help the Government out of the fixes it gets into with the party. I don't myself think much of the idea, which smacks of making space for space's sake, not a characteristic of the Prime Minister. Since I also think he is far too stubborn to shunt John Davies off to Brussels, I doubt if the reshuffle will be very great at Cabinet level: the slaughter is likely to happen lower down.
Man for the job?
Sir Alec had better be pretty fit and well for the Conservative Party conference. Already alternate fits of shivery spines and cold sweats are prevalent in Smith Square and throughout the Government, as the dread prospect of a conference revolt on the Ugandan Asians is contemplated. There will have to be a debate: there is no escaping that; and there is no escaping, either, the ugly mood of a substantial section of the Party on the subject. In recent years only the general trouble of immigration itself and, to a lesser extent, the prob. lem of Rhodesia, have confronted party managers with so dangerous a possibility. The big question is, who will reply to the debate? Should it be Robert Carr, who is the man in charge, and a man of eminently sweet reason and capacity? Should Sir Alec — who will certainly be on the platform for the debate — himself have another shot at the job which, after all, he did not discharge so well on television recently? Or should the Prime Minister himself take up a gauntlet likely to have been thrown down by Enoch Powell? The present Leader has only once before spoken on two occasions at the same conference, and that was when he took on the crushing of a putative rebellion on Rhodesia. The old stagers are all for leaving it to Alec; one or two young Turks will urge the Prime Minister to take on Enoch and the right himself, and attempt to smash them once and for all. The prospect of so gladiatorial a combat certainly has a massive appeal.
Farewell, Avery
There is an Olympic footnote worth consideration. So far as I can see I am the only journalist now writing who can think of anything good to be said for the retiring President of the International Olympic Committee, Avery Brundage. It seems to me that Brundage ,so far as has lain within his power, has tried to keep the Games true to the spirit of amateurism, and individual as opposed to national competition. Of course he has been arrogant, ruthless, and even vain. Of course, as in his address at the memorial service for the dead Israeli team, he has identified his own views with the Olympic cause. But, nonetheless, there has been this distinction easily made between Brundage and his critics. While we have all observed an in crease in professional — called shamateuretic — activity at the Games, Brundage has fought this tendency for the whole of the time he has been President of the IOC. While his critics — usually those of ' liberal ' persuasion, inclined to regard Brundage as a fuddy-duddy because he has objected to the exclusion of Rhodesia — have been inclined to compromise with, while deploring, the tendency to professional athletics, the old man himself has stood firm; and stood firmly for the ideals of the modern (i.e. post-Coubertin) Olympics. Avery Brundage is a great man; and I mourn his passing, for I can see no signs of equivalent and decent in transigence in his successor. PC
Previous page
