Westminster Commentary
'THIS debate will be regarded by many people outside, I'm afraid, as unreal.' Thus Mr. (( Aneurin Bevan, winding up for the Opposition in the de- bate on disarmament. Before I go on, at some length, to award Mr. Bevan full marks for his insight, an example of what he no doubt meant may come in handy. Mr. Sharpies (for some years I used to think that Mr. Sharpies was a misprint for Mr. Marples) observed, to a House of sixteen, that `so long as Germany re- mains divided there is going to be an area of tension between East and West.' Many people outside? I can vouch for one person inside to whom the debate seemed not merely unreal but positively ridiculous. It is time the Opposition took a long look at their method of selecting the subjects to be debated on supply days. What hap- pened in this case is that the recess wgs fast approaching, there had not been a discussion of disarmament for ages, and the Shadow Cabinet consequently thought it was about time they forced one.
So they did. But a measure of its unreality may be obtained from the fact that Mr. Noel-Baker, opening for the Opposition, spoke for all but an hour and made no practical proposal except that the minutes of the disarmament sub-committee ought to be published with greater dispatch and in a handier form. And I take leave to doubt the wisdom even of this suggestion.
But what, other than unreality, could be ex- pected? Does anybody seriously believe that agreement on disarmament will be achieved in the disarmament sub-committee, whose only useful purpose these days is to keep Commander Noble too busy to do very much harm elsewhere? Any- body would think, from thd level on which this debate was conducted, that the sub-coinmittee was a nineteenth-century debating society, presided over by James Mill, and that each of the members seriously listened to what the others had to say.
Whom did Mr. Sandys imagine he was impressing, for instance, when he wagged his handsome red head and solemnly declared 'without qualification and without reservation' that 'there is no gate, no door, and no cupboard we should not be willing to open to international inspection, if all other countries are prepared to do the same'? Mr. Sandys knows as well as I do that if disarmament- with-inspection is finally agreed upon we shall break the agreement, if necessary using a disused Cornish tin-mine to store our forbidden bombs in, just as the Americans will hide theirs in Fort Knox ('Oh, that's just a lot of gold, old man; you don't want to look at that'), and the Russians theirs in Lenin's Mausoleum. Mr. Arthur Henderson, in a speech that was half-sensible (a good half more than most), pointed out how futile and dangerous the Kellogg Pact was, but omitted to draw the necessary conclusion—that a lot of the suggestions for disarmament to be heard these days, particu- larly from the Opposition, were just as bad. Most people are agreed, after all, that it would be un- wise to believe that the Russians mean what they say. Much more unwise, however, and legs often recognised as such, would be to act as if we believed it.
Still, whatever the fallacies contained in Mr. Bevan's winding-up—and they were numerous and extensive—it cannot be denied that as an orator he has, when on form, no rival in the present House now that the Member for Wood- ford has fallen on silence. (Admirers of the Mem- ber for Woodford—and which of us is not?—may comfort themselves with the fact that when he entered, during the division, the public gallery broke into applause; I do not think they will do the same for Mr. Bevan before all the coal in Ebbw Vale has turned to diamonds.) Karl Marx would doubtless have dismissed Mr. Bevan as a Phraseur (it was Marx's favourite term of abuse), but times have changed; it is Mr. Bevan who will be Labour's Foreign Secretary, not Mr. Harry Pollitt. Besides, what phrases! Who but Mr. Bevan, when interrupted by Lord Hinching- brooke, could condemn such 'customary frivolity' and then add, almost as an afterthought, 'It's very difficult to push five-bob ideas into half-crown minds'? (My word, didn't Hinch look furious! And Mr. Bevan didn't make it any better by say- ing, 'I'm sorry that I was so rough, but we get these interruptions from the noble Lord at this time of night.') Compensations? Well, Babs is looking very Pretty these days; first in blue silk with a rather daring neck-line, then in flowered Lancashire cotton, which she bravely donned to hear Lady Megan's maiden speech, like the dance band of the Titanic playing on as the deck tilted higher. As it turned out, though the House filled like magic immediately she rose, Lady Megan was far from overwhelming. Speaking from a position beside Mr. Zilliacus, and thus provoking the re- flection that megliness is next to oddliness, she Was restrained and careful rather than eloquent and incisive. Still, there is a Lloyd-George back in the House, and a nice one this time.
There is also a Wedgwood Benn, and I hope I can convey my meaning by describing him as intellectually lantern-jawed. The first day of the Oman row was spoilt for me by the fact that I SOON gave up the attempt to understand the differ- ence between Imam, Oman and Amman, and began to wonder when the Oni of lie would be brought into the discussion. I have never heard he Speaker less sure of himself than in rejecting ir.Benn's attempt to move the adjournment Under Standing Order 9, but at the age of 32 one Would have to be pretty pompous to announce the have day that one has in consequence Put down a motion censuring the Speaker. (It was Seconded by •Mr. Paget; he is pretty pompous.) Meanwhile, fire burns and cauldron bubbles. IT he resolutions for the Labour Party conference aye been published; a first-class row may be "Peeted'on defence, but my guess is that the t,nationalisation debate will be much less riotous han mere reading of the forty-one resolutions °n the subjeci would indicate. But the really exciting moment of Labour Party lionferences these days is that in wtlich the Execu- _Ivo election results are announced. If Mr. rikardo has opened his annual book on the event I Would be intrigued to know what odds he is ra/:ing against Mr. Crossman, a man who has .."Isect indiscretion to the level of an art. Of course thing but the antiquated internal structure of aie Labour Party could compel Mr. Gaitskell to why° any of the ninety-three trade uniOn MPs ter.") Mr. Crossman dismissed a sniff at minis- eielal office (incidentally, they haven't won the in eti°n yet, and the man who sold the bear's pelt vFavance was killed with hunting him), but does do' rossman seriously believe that Mr. Gaitskell fouur n t know that well enough? Indeed, of the drea he did select for preferment, I wouldn't Robin of giving a job to Mr. Griffiths or Mr. Mr. Ts, and would make a face at giving one to Woul"rvan or Mr. Brown. If it comes to that, I win ,.cin' t give one to Mr. Crossman either. Nor GaitskelL
TAPER
Previous page
