Notebook
The Advertising Controller of the Independent Broadcasting Authority has pronounced: the Spectator is not allow- ed to advertise on television. This statement by Mr Harry Theobalds on the Channel Four programme 'Right to Reply' came, I have to admit, as something of a shock. We have never actually tried to advertise on television, though sometimes I have wondered, when watching those soothing intermissions on Channel Four, if they might not be more usefully filled with publicity on our behalf. It has sometimes occurred to me that repeated adver- tisements for the Spectator might be less damaging to national morale than those endless public health and safety warnings designed to instil fear into the most carefree viewer. But I have been indulging in fan- tasy. Like homosexuals, family planners, cigarette manufacturers, fortune tellers, bookies, undertakers, escort agencies, Moonies and even the Church of England, the Spectator fails to live up to the austere advertising standards of the IBA. The rule under which we are condemned turns out to be Article Nine of the IBA's 'Code of advertising standards and practices'. This reads: `No advertisement may be inserted by or on behalf of any body, the objects whereof are wholly or mainly of a political nature, and no advertisement may be directed towards any political end."Well, let's get this clear then,' Mr Theobalds was asked on Channel Four, 'You would not ac- cept an advertisement from the magazine the Spectator."Right', said Mr Theobaltis, adding irrelevantly: 'We would not accept an advertisement, for example, from a jour- nal which is published by the Bow Group. 'But the Spectator is indepen- dent, it is a political weekly. . ."Ab- solutely,' says Mr Theobalds, becoming confused, 'but the Spectator and indeed perhaps the New Statesman are probably less. . . What we have to do is to examine very closely the political philosophy of the Journal, whether it is particularly tied either to a political party or expressing consistent- ly a particular view. . .' The ban does not, for example, apply to daily newspapers like the Daily Express, which announced the other day; 'Let there be no doubt on this issue. We stand four-square and one hun- dred per cent behind Mrs Thatcher.' But why not? According to Mr Theobalds, the IBA's criterion is whether the publication is Wholly or mainly political.' The daily Papers apparently are not; nor, for that matter, is the Economist, which is also allowed to advertise. And for reasons which Mr Theobalds could not explain, even an advertisement for the Social Democratic Journal, the Democrat, has been broadcast on London Weekend. If anyone can understand the logic of the IBA's position, I would be delighted to hear from him.
A ccording to a new biography of 1-3■Margaret Thatcher published this week (Thatcher by Nicholas Wapshott and George Brock, Futura, £1.95), the Prime Minister's hair was already white in 1976 when she was 50 years old. She was originally fair, but now she is a brunette thanks to a 'hair tinter' called Brian Carter who comes to Number Ten Downing Street every Sunday 'when there is enough time for the elaborate process'. Nobody com- plains about this, and why should they? If she wishes to make herself look younger, she is entitled to do so. But what of poor Ronald Reagan? He is 16 years older than the Prime Minister, yet feels obliged whenever asked, to deny that his hair is not its natural colour. Nobody believes him, of course. But even if he is telling the truth, why is it politically damaging for a man to dye his hair yet perfectly acceptable for a woman to do so? We must fight against such sexism. Mr Foot should take the lead by dyeing his hair immediately.
'still believe that the main reason why Mrs Thatcher is going to win the election is the Falklands war. It is only since the Falklands that she has enjoyed a lead in the opinion polls. If she had, called an election when the war ended last June, she would have won with a large majority. But it was considered bad form to call a Khaki elec- tion, so she didn't do so. However, she has managed to keep her victory alive in people's minds ever since, and it is not too late for her to earn her reward. The elec- torate's debt of gratitude has still to be paid. What, then does the Conservative manifesto say about it all? Very little. There are only three brief references to it, and none of them mentions the Prime Minister's role. The manifesto talks of 'the courage, skill and determination' and, 'the professional dedication' of the British arm- ed forces, and adds that the next Conser- vative Government 'will continue to uphold the principles for which we fought'. But that is about all. No more, indeed, needs to be said. It is far better for Mrs Thatcher that her main electoral asset should not become a source of controversy during the campaign.
Mrs Thatcher, we learn, has declined her friend Sir Hector Laing's generous offer of a nine-seater Beechcraft aeroplane to take her around the country during the election campaign. She has decided instead, at the Conservative Party's expense, to charter a BAC One-Eleven, so that she can carry large quantities of jour- nalists with her. Perhaps it is as well. Sir Hector is Chairman of United Biscuits, which nowadays comprises among other companies the old Scottish firm of McVities, manufacturers of jaffa cakes. In 1924, the Chairman of McVities was Sir Alexander Grant, who lent a Daimler and a chauffeur to his friend the Labour Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald. In those days, prime ministers were not entitled to an official car, and Macdonald was the first ' prime minister who could not afford one. Nevertheless, when the Daily Mail revealed Sir Alexander's loan, there was widespread public contempt. During the 1924 election campaign, Macdonald was constantly inter- rupted with shouts of 'Biscuit! Biscuit!', and this embarrassed him greatly. There will be no cries of 'Biscuit' during this cam- paign. But then, come to think of it, there were no such cries during the 1979 election when Mrs Thatcher did use Sir Hector's air- craft. This is not the sort of thing that wor- ries people any more.
Here is a little competition for the elec- tion. A letter from Mr James Menhinick in last week's Spectator recalled a Boer War music-hall song — 'The Baby's name is Kitchener'.
I reprint it again here.
The Bay's name is Kitchener Carrington Methuen Kekewich White Cronje Plumer Powell Majuba Gatacre Warren Colenso Kruger Cape Town Mafeking French Kimberley Ladysmith Bobs The Union Jack & Fighting Mac Lyddite Pretoria Bloggs.
Using this as your model, you are invited to write two verses employing as many names as possible from the present election cam- paign. Entries are to be sent to me at the Spectator. The closing date is Monday, 30 May. The prize is £15.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
