Spectator's Notebook

HE controversy over the Government's pre-

budgetary kite-flying about family allowances is becoming dangerously removed from common sense. The motive behind ministers' explorations

t,his field is a wholly admirable one: the desire to do something to help the really poor, many— but- by no means all—of whom have large families. But there is no justification whatever for choosing to make tax-paying families with young children—rather than the taxpayer in general— finance any help of this kind. Nor, when the object is the relief of poverty, is there any justification for making the number of children rather than the extent of need the yardstick used. The best test of this Government's vaunted prag- matism will be whether it succeeds in burying its doctrinaire objection to the means test in the cause of common humanity.

Lingua Franca I was interested to read in the serialised ex- tracts of Mr Manchester's book the 'closely guarded secret' that, during the last three months of his life, Kennedy had been having regular French lessons. 'The President had decided,' writes Manchester, 'that the most effective way to tackle General de Gaulle would be to learn his language—really learn it—and then negotiate in it.' How does our own pragmatist measure up to this standard of professionalism and general pur- posefulness? Well, in his prepared speech to the European Assembly at Strasbourg the Prime Minister went so far as to refer to Montesquieu's work as La Separation des Pouvoirs; while at his press conference in Paris, when asked whether devaluation was called for as a condition of entry. he startled the reporters by replying, with a smile at the French, 'au contraire.' But that, I'm afraid, seems to be the total score to date. Which perhaps explains why the General, rather cruelly, complimented Mr Wilson on his command of Russian.

But What if He Says Oui?

Talking of the Common Market, the one mess- age some pro-European cabinet ministers most dread hearing from the Elysee at the present time

goes something like this: 'Let us cease all these time-wasting preliminaries. If you feel you can ace* all the rules and conditions of the Rome Treaty, the common agricultural policy and all the rest of the regulations, then sign now and there will be no French veto. If not, I shall, of course understand; but go, and forever hold your peace.' Their terror of the General's 'our is not —pace Mr Shinwell—caused primarily by the devastating impact such an ultimatum would have within the Parliamentary Labour party. What worries them more is the knowledge that the pound could not survive immediate British entry into the Common Market. In a year or so's time, they hopefully believe, it will be fully re- stored to health and all will be well. But faced with an immediate choice between joining the Community and saving the pound, they're un- easily aware that the Prime Minister would plump for the second. And it would be difficult to blame that on General de Gaulle.

Malta If this is one putative part of the political price of maintaining an overvalued exchange rate, the Malta affair is a real and actual one. No one pretends that the decision to reduce rapidly Britain's forces on the island, at the cost of a

serious breach of faith and an increase in Malta's unemployment from 8 per cent to 18 per cent, has any justification in terms of defence require- ments. It is simply dictated by the desire to save a trivial f7 million or so in foreign exchange. To argue that a nation as wealthy as Britain 'can- not afford' an outlay of this kind is ludicrous. But what is true is that we cannot find the foreign exchange required so long as we insist on main- taining an overvalued currency. In short, it's not simply the economic growth and social reform which are being sacrificed to the pound, but Britain's foreign policy and national defences as well.

Trad

Last year, we all know, was the nine- hundredth anniversary of the Norman Conquest

and All That; but what's the Government going to find for us to celebrate in 1967? (1 assume they'll want to forget the Tory Reform Act.) If I knew which particular government department was responsible for this choice, and for seeing that the PMG gets the stamps printed, I think I'd suggest to it the centenary of Britain's declin-

ing share in world trade. So far as I'm aware, the records show only that our share has been de- clining continuously since 1870, but I'm sure a little dedicated research could get it back to 1867. The trouble with the usual form is that we always celebrate great creative acts of the past, which inevitably make us discontented with the present and feel irretrievably inferior to our grandfathers. If, instead, we were to mark past disasters, this could have a magnificent effect on national morale. For the great thing about past disasters is that we've survived them. If we've lived through a hundred years in which our share of world trade has fallen, why shouldn't we look forward to another hundred? At the very least it would do something to put into perspective the air of crisis that is vulgarly supposed to invest any mention of, for example, our share in world trade or the technological gap.

And that's another one. The only reason I don't suggest celebrating the centenary of the technolo- gical gap is that we've long let that slip by. Already by the 1840's Parliamentary Committees were taking evidence on the reasons for the superiority of American productivity. Indeed, by 18% even Germany had overtaken us in steel production. 'Nor was our recession in scale only,' Sir Robert Ensor has written. 'Germany and the United States made their steel with newer, larger, more efficient units of plant than ours, and fairly outclassed us under most aspects. Perhaps what we really need is a new great exhibition on the general theme '100 years of industrial decline.' After all, as Gibbon might have pointed out, a civilisation can best be judged by the length of time it takes to decline. Here, surely, is some- thing of which we can be justly proud.

Un sound?

I'm getting a little worried by the BBC's sound news bulletins these days. Not only do they con- tain less straight news than ever, but such news as there is now seems to be entrusted to two separate male voices who take turns to read the lines. Of course, French radio has long em- ployed this sort of device with a man-and-woman team, in an attempt to provide some mild illusion of sexual interest in even the fatstock prices. But what Auntie is playing at I shudder to think.

NIGEL LAWSON