Jim's soft shuffle

John Grigg In his Government changes Mr Callaghan acted true to form, as a prudent party manager rather than as a bold and creative political artist. Like his two immediate predecessors he is clearly a bad 'butcher'. It seems that the supposedly disastrous effect upon Mr Macmillan of his purge of the Cabinet in July 1962 is serving as a memento mori to prime ministers.

Actually that purge had little to do with Mr Macmillan's decline. If, at the beginning of the following year, de Gaulle had not vetoed his application to join the Common Market, his credit would have stood high and he would have been able to weather all his domestic difficulties, including the Profumo affair. It was the frustration of his foreign policy that broke the Supermac spell.

His sackings in 1962 were at least partly justified, and his new appointments were on the whole very good. Looking back he believes himself that he was unwise to combine the removal of Selwyn Lloyd from the Treasury with a general reconstruction of the Government. If he had left the other changes until Parliament was adjourned he could, he now thinks, have carried out the operation in the autumn 'quietly and without any sense of undue pressure'.

That may well be true, but it is a point of tactical detail. Mr Macmillan is unrepentant about the principle of a general reconstruction, which gave him the opportunity to promote a youngish man (Mr Maudling) to the Treasury, and to bring Sir Edward Boyle and Sir Keith Joseph into the Cabinet, representing (as he told the Queen) 'active and energetic youth'.

Mr Callaghan had one big vacancy created for him, by the departure of Mr Jenkins, and Lord Shepherd's resignation 'for personal reasons' gave him another Cabinet place to fill. But such was his reluctance to have any blood on his hands that he appointed Mr Peart to succeed Lord Shepherd. It is hard to understand why.

Mr Peart is a worthy but hardly an indispensable politician. Granted that the Prime Minister was willing to face a bye-election in his constituency, he could have been sent to the House of Lords without retaining a seat in the Cabinet. Lady Llewellyn-Davies, the Government's hard-working and efficient chief whip in the Lords, could then have been appointed leader, and the Cabinet would have had the benefit of another woman member.

Another candidate for retirement was Mr Mulley, but Mr Callaghan may have felt that he could not be asked to go without being made to seem the scapegoat for Tameside. As a result, the Cabinet had to be enlarged to make room for new members, when it would have been better for its size to be reduced.

Merlyn Rees's appointment to the Home Office was tediously predictable. All the evidence suggests that he is not quite up to the job. If Mr Callaghan had dared to appoint Mr Wedgwood Benn, both he and the State might have been richly rewarded.

The Home Office calls for a very adroit and articulate politician, and few would deny that Mr Benn meets both requirements. Of course his flirtation with the Left is a nuisance, but it would almost certainly be less obtrusive if he were Home Secretary, if only because he would be tied to the 'Rightwing' cause of law and order.

No Home Secretary can be successful if he fails to uphold the law and give general support to the police. Besides, Mr Benn is very far from being a natural anarchist, and he would find some of the work of the police, more especially that which involves modern gadgetry, very much to his taste.

There would, however, be a large and wholesome outlet for his 'Left-wing' impulses in the fight against racialism. Whereas Mr Rees is unlikely to cut a very convincing figure vis-,a-vis the National Front, Mr Benn would be more than a match for it.

The choice of Roy Mason as Mr Rees's successor in Ulster is sound, if not exactly inspiring. The Prime Minister has at least shown that he regards defeating terrorism as the top priority over there, and Mr Mason should not be unduly put out that he has encountered initial hostility in both communities.

If he can prove that the IRA is losing, all else will be added to him, including the collapse of para-militarism on the Unionist side. Politically, the only initiative required is fair representation for Ulster at Westminster, and Mr Mason should impress the need for that upon his colleagues.

It is just as well that Roy Hattersley has not been sent to Ulster, though he is a suitable younger recruit to the Cabinet. Apart from the disadvantage of having an exceptionally large number of Irish constituents, he also has a temperament and style which would go down badly in Northern Ireland.

The promotion of William Rodgers— moving spirit in the Campaign for Democratic Socialism, which brought about a reversal of the 1960 Labour conference decision in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament—is very well deserved. And it is probably a good thing that Transport has been taken out of the Department of the Environment and re-established as a separate ministry. (Mr Heath's super-ministries are taking a beating. Sir Harold Wilson had already dismantled the composite depart ment of Trade and Industry.)

Mr Orme remains within Mr Ennals's department as Minister for Social Security,

while becoming a member of the Cabinet.

He is a Tribune Grouper who, like his colleague the Employment Secretary, had

the good fortune to be denied a hearing at the Group's recent meeting at Brighton. He provides leftward balance without being anY more subversive than he looks.

Most press comment and public interest have been focused on Shirley Williams's appointment as Education Secretary, which has been rather naïvely seen as indicating both the Prime Minister's desire to advance her fortunes and his deep concern for the cause of education.

It was certainly wise not to make her Home Secretary over Mr Benn's head

(which would have been tantamount to pro

voking his resignation). But it is by a° means clear that Mrs Williams will be able to enhance her reputation in the post that she has been given. As a 'Right-winger' she will be the prisoner of Labour's doctrinaire schools policy, which will do her no good Irl the eyes of moderates both inside and NI" side her party. The task of piloting devolue tion through the House of Commons would have suited her better.

But in any case her chances of leading the Labour Party depend upon Labour's wins ning the next election, because if Mr Thatcher becomes Prime Minister it will not be only male chauvinist pigs who will feel

misgivings about a regiment of vvonle°

stretching into the indefinite future. fie rather the same way Mr Heath's election Is Tory leader blighted Sir Edward Boyle 5 chances, because it was not to be expected that the party would be led by two musical bachelors running.) Mr Callaghan now faces a very difficult period, with the pound queasy again and the

hazards of a Labour party conference

surmount. The 'social contract' has worke° well against inflation, but insofar as it is als° a socialist contract its power to damage the economy and foreign confidence is, unfortunately, great. The threatened nationalisation of bank,si which is already TUC policy and 0'11 become party policy if it receives a tw°thirds vote at the conference, could hard' be less opportune. And there is also a m°ver to secure repudiation by the conference 0' the Government's spending cuts. As chairman of the party's home affairs committee Mr Benn has favoured the nationalisation proposal and has not opposed the move against cuts. But at fled week's full meeting of the national executive

he may not be allowed, as he was previous to have it both ways on an issue vita" affecting the Government's credit.

If Mr Callaghan forces him to choose be

ger may—though it would surprise me—Pr

to resign. As Home Secretary he would ha.ve been still more likely to make the loyal'st choice, and it may therefore turn out that 3 less cautious reshuffle would have been the more enlightened prudence.