Boothby was intelligent, but wayward in his habits and ductile in his feelings. ‘A fighter with delicate nerves,’ Harold Nicolson called him in 1936. Boothby had a look of manly vigour, with a boisterous style, and a reputation as a coureur des femmes. Nevertheless, he enjoyed being chased by men during his trips to Weimar Germany, and supposedly enjoyed frottage with fit, ordinary-looking, emotionally straightforward youths. Homosexuality, however, drove public men to suicide or exile in the 1920s, and stalled careers; indeed it was a preoccupation of policemen and blackmailers until partially decriminalised in 1967. ‘I detected the danger and sheered away from it,’ Boothby later wrote.9
Dorothy and Harold Macmillan had one son and three daughters. She fostered the untruth that their youngest daughter Sarah, born in 1930, had been fathered by Boothby, in the hope of provoking her husband to agree to a divorce. Macmillan did not yield to this wish. A solicitor whom he consulted warned that divorce would be an obstacle to receiving ministerial office, and might make Cabinet rank impossible. It might even require him to resign his parliamentary seat (as happened in 1944 when Henry Hunloke MP was in the process of divorce from Dorothy’s sister Anne, and seemed likely for a time in 1949 when James Stuart MP, married to another sister, was cited in a divorce). There would have been outcry at Birch Grove, too. His brother Arthur had been ostracised by their mother for marrying a divorcee in 1931, despite consulting the Bishop of London before proceeding with the ceremony.
Until the divorce reforms of 1969, it was necessary for one of the married partners to be judged ‘guilty’ of adultery or marital cruelty before a divorce could be granted. It was considered deplorable, except in flagrant scandals, for a man to attack his wife’s reputation by naming her as the guilty party. Instead, even if the wife had an established lover, the husband was expected to provide evidence of guilt, by such ruses as hiring a woman to accompany him to a Brighton hotel, signing the guestbook ostentatiously, sitting up all night with her playing cards, but having sworn evidence from hotel staff or private detectives that they had spent the night together. Macmillan, who had been neither adulterous nor cruel to his wife, refused to collude in fabricating evidence of marital guilt: still less was he willing to sue her for divorce, and cite Boothby as co-respondent. ‘In the break-up of a marriage,’ Anthony Powell wrote of the 1930s, ‘the world inclines to take the side of the partner with most vitality, rather than the one apparently least to blame’.10 Sympathy, then, lay with Dorothy Macmillan.
She was too proud and ardent to bother with discretion as an adulteress; her bracing earthiness left no room for subtlety. Her telephone calls to Boothby were made in earshot of her husband and children; she left Boothby’s love letters visible about the Birch Grove and Chester Square houses. As he wrote to a parliamentary colleague in 1933, she was ‘the most formidable thing in the world – a possessive, single-track woman. She wants me, completely, and she wants my children, and she wants practically nothing else. At every crucial moment she acts instinctively and overwhelmingly.’ Over forty years later, in 1977, Boothby gave a similar recapitulation. ‘What Dorothy wanted and needed was emotion, on the scale of Isolde. This Harold could not give her, and I did. She was, on the whole, the most selfish and most possessive woman I have ever known.’ When he got engaged to an American heiress, she pursued him from Chatsworth, via Paris, to Lisbon. ‘We loved each other,’ he said, ‘and there is really nothing you can do about it, except die.’11
Commentators have suggested that Macmillan’s distress at his wife’s lifelong infidelity (her affair with Boothby lasted until her death in 1966) made him chary of speaking to Profumo directly in 1963, or of confronting the implausibility of the minister’s disavowals of an affair with Keeler. This is doubtful, for Downing Street power relaxed Macmillan’s inhibitions. ‘The PM,’ wrote his niece, the young Duchess of Devonshire, in 1958, ‘has become much more human all of a sudden and talks about things like Adultery quite nicely.’ His prime ministerial diaries show his pleasure in playing the part of a man-of-the-world who knew about kept women, betrayal and divorce. In 1958, after reading the memoirs of the nineteenth-century courtesan Harriette Wilson, he mused that Doris Delavigne, Beaverbrook’s Streatham-born mistress (and quondam wife of Beaverbrook’s columnist Lord Castlerosse), who took a fatal overdose of barbiturates after being insulted in 1942 in a corridor of the Dorchester hotel by the Duke of Marlborough, was one of the last of the demimondaines. ‘This type really depends on the institution of marriage being strict & divorce impossible or rare,’ he wrote. ‘Now people marry for a year or two & then pass to the next period of what is really licensed concubinage. Since the so-called “upper classes” are as corrupt as they can be, these ladies, like Harriette Wilson, are cut out by “real ladies” – the daughters of our friends. I think the old way was really best.’12
It is, however, true that the Profumo Affair snared a specific, secret susceptibility of Macmillan’s. The ‘foursome’, as Harold Wilson slyly called Ward, Profumo, Keeler and the Russian attaché Yevgeny Ivanov, whose convergence was imagined to raise security issues, had met at the Astor house, Cliveden.13 Thirty years earlier Nancy Astor had made decisive interventions during the Macmillan marital crisis: a visit by Boothby to Cliveden had proved critical to its resolution. Like many people who had been done a good turn, Macmillan did not forgive the Astors for helping him at his nadir. He associated them with memories that he preferred to repress.
Boothby triggered the crisis in September 1932. He told his lover that he could not continue their ‘unendurable’ half-life together: ‘Just an interminable series of agonising “goodbyes” with nothing to go back to. Living always for the next time. Work to hell. Nerves to hell.’ Dorothy Macmillan was aghast at Boothby’s ultimatum: marriage or a clean break. ‘Why did you ever wake me?’ she cried at him. ‘I never want to see any of my family again. And, without you, life for me is going to be nothing but one big hurt.’ She knew that Boothby’s political career would be ruined if he eloped with another MP’s wife, and that they would have little money to live on. She asked her husband for a divorce, confident that he would agree to collude in providing evidence, and was devastated when in January 1933 he gave an adamant refusal. In desperation she sought sympathy and counsel from Nancy Astor, who gave her the use of a house at Sandwich in Kent as refuge for calm reflection. Lady Astor invited Boothby to Cliveden: there were confabulations in St James’s Square with the deserted husband, who also sought his mother-in-law’s help. ‘Poor Harold had another awful time with me last night, & he talked till 3 in the morning, and is still entirely hard about everything and everybody,’ the Duchess of Devonshire wrote to Nancy Astor on 24 January.14
Macmillan was exciting himself into a suicidal rage. Around 31 January 1933 he scrawled an agonised pencilled note from 14 Chester Square to his trusted intermediary in his marital negotiations. It is the most emotionally naked document of his that survives, and the fact that it was sent to an Astor may explain his inhibitions, and unforgiving attitude to Bill Astor, when thirty years later a scarring scandal was foisted on Cliveden. ‘Dearest Nancy,’ he wrote. ‘Sorry to bother you. But make it clear to her that I will never divorce her’ – even if she publicly absconded with Boothby. ‘If she does that, I will kill myself. I won’t & can’t face the children. This is real – not stuff.’ Having promised suicide if Dorothy deserted him, he proposed the best way forward. ‘If I could feel she was trying to achieve the same ultimate objective as I am, I will do everything to make her life happy. But I must feel that we are working together, as it were. And she must be considerate to my nerves.’ If she would try to restore ‘normality,’ he promised, ‘I’ll devote anything that [is] left of my life for that – for the children & for her – whom I love more than I can say. Tell her that I am still grateful for the 8 happiest years that mortal man ever had. Nothing can take that away from me.’15
A few hours later he sent Nancy Astor a second message: ‘You are our angel – and you are really fighting for a soul, as well as for lots of innocent people – e.g. four lovely children.’ On 1 February he saw Boothby, and received a letter from Dorothy accepting a compromise. ‘It only remains, therefore, for us to help her to build a new life & to heal the wounds,’ he told Nancy Astor in a third letter. ‘I realise that I can do nothing – except negatively, by leaving her alone.’ There was no bridling of his gratitude to Lady Astor for her handling of Boothby. ‘Dear, dear Nancy – I know how much I owe to you. When I saw him on Tuesday after he had been at Cliveden, he was in a different mood (I sensed a great change) to any that I had seen at previous interviews. It seemed to me that some of the crust of cynicism had been broken & all the rot with which he had protected himself was rather shattered. Your influence I trace there.’ Macmillan believed that their prayers, too, had helped. The continuing strains in the situation were clear in a later confidence of Evie Devonshire’s to Lady Astor. Dorothy’s temper was stabilised, the duchess wrote, but ‘whether she will ever get over her dislike of H is another matter, but she is less hard and angry’.16
Macmillan’s marital traumas raised a muffled commotion in Society. It was humiliating that parliamentary colleagues knew he was Boothby’s cuckold. He donned a mask of indifference, but was instilled with the vengeful ambition and steely endurance that brought him to the premiership in 1957. He described himself to his biographer Alistair Horne as ‘this strange, very buttoned-up person’. Strolling in the Birch Grove grounds with Horne, he proffered a hint about himself: ‘I think gardens should be divided, so you can’t see everything at once.’ Pamela Wyndham, wife of his closest confidant as Prime Minister, said he was protean in his shape-shifting: ‘one moment you had a salmon in your hand, the next it was a horse’. Significantly, one of his favourite novels was Dumas’s Count of Monte Cristo, with its hero who returns from the dead in various disguises to wreak revenge on those who had betrayed and humiliated him. An air of cynical mastery was what he aspired to.17
Two anecdotes from the day (Thursday 10 January 1957) that Macmillan became Prime Minister show his derogation within his family and his studied nonchalance. In the afternoon he had an audience with the Queen at Buckingham Palace, and accepted her commission to form a government. The news was swiftly broadcast by the BBC. At the Macmillan publishing offices excited staff brought the news to Daniel Macmillan, the eldest brother and chairman of the business. ‘Mr Macmillan’s been appointed Prime Minister,’ they said. ‘No,’ replied Daniel Macmillan, ‘Mr Harold has been appointed Prime Minister.’ (A few years later Daniel Macmillan, while lunching at the long table at the Garrick, was bearded by a club bore. ‘Is it true,’ demanded the bore, ‘that President Kennedy speaks to your brother daily on the telephone?’ Daniel’s reply was deadpan: ‘Whyever would President Kennedy want to do that?’) Edward Heath, who was the Tories’ highly effective Chief Whip in 1955–59, recalled the evening of the tenth. Macmillan had been Prime Minister for a few hours. ‘Where is the Chief Whip? We’re off to the Turf to celebrate!’ he cried to Downing Street staff. When the two men reached the club in Piccadilly, they found a lone man installed at the bar reading the Evening Standard with a front-page headline blazoning Macmillan’s appointment. The club man looked up, recognised Macmillan, and asked laconically: ‘Any good shooting recently?’
‘No,’ replied Macmillan.
‘What a pity,’ said the man. Heath and Macmillan were served their drinks, ordered oysters and steak, and then rose for the dining room. As they left, the man at the bar looked up and said as casually as before, ‘Oh, by the way, congratulations.’ This was the off-hand behaviour that Macmillan preferred, however ruffled his underlying feelings or agitated his nerves.18
Originality could be fatal to men of Macmillan’s generation, or indeed to the vast majority of those who had served in the armed forces in either of the world wars. Conformity in clothes, deportment and opinions was the sign of trustworthiness. Conventionality was so strong that when Sir John Widgery was appointed a Judge of the Queen’s Bench Division in 1961, there was disgruntlement among lawyers because he would not sacrifice his military-looking moustache, although the English bench was entirely clean-shaven. Indeed, the process by which Macmillan became Prime Minister exemplified conformity in action. After Eden had announced his resignation to the Cabinet on 9 January 1957, the Cabinet members, except Butler and Macmillan, went one by one to Lord Salisbury’s room in the Privy Council Office. There they were questioned by Salisbury and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir. Their reception by Kilmuir and Salisbury reminded most of them of a visit to the headmaster’s study.
Salisbury, who deprecated Rab Butler as a prewar appeaser, did not interview the Cabinet in order of seniority, but began with ministers whom he judged most committed to Macmillan. To each minister Salisbury posed the same question: ‘Well, which is it? Wab or Hawold?’ He had laid on the table a sheet of notepaper with two columns headed ‘Macmillan’ and ‘Butler’ deliberately visible. The names accumulated in the first column, and deterred wobblers from naming Butler; only one minister did so, and he never held ministerial office again. Tory backbenchers, whom Macmillan had been sedulous in cultivating since November, also plumped for him because he seemed more combative than Butler: he had resisted the appeasement policy of which Butler had been a principal exponent. Memories of the war, martial attitudes, and the instilled discipline of 1939–45 were pervasive: twelve years is not a long time, except to children.
‘Would you like to join my shooting party?’ Macmillan asked men whom he was inviting to join his government. Fifty-two offices changed holders; four ministers left the Cabinet. Forming his administration, as he noted in his diary, ‘meant seeing nearly a hundred people and trying to say the right thing to each … many considerations had to be born in mind – the right, centre and left of the party; the extreme “Suez” group; the extreme opposition to Suez; the loyal centre – and last, but not least, U and non-U (to use the jargon that Nancy Mitford has popularised) that is, Eton, Winchester, etc. on the one hand; Board school and grammar school on the other.’19
To Butler, in October 1957, Macmillan regretted the lack of ruthlessness among his Cabinet colleagues: ‘there were no tough guys like Swinton’.20 The Earl of Swinton, whose dropping from the Cabinet by Eden in 1955 Macmillan had deplored, was a revealing political model for Macmillan to tout: a middle-class professional man, whose marriage had transmuted him into the territorial aristocracy; a first-generation grandee with a moderated swagger; a politician with thirty years of Cabinet experience who had proven his acumen and resilience.
Swinton had once been Philip Lloyd-Greame, a barrister who specialised in mining law. He won the Military Cross on the Somme, and in 1918 was elected for the newly created London suburban constituency of Hendon, a northern equivalent to Bromley, where Macmillan was elected MP in 1945. His Hendon candidature was financially sponsored by Dudley Docker, founding President of the Federation of British Industries, on whose company boards he sat until 1922, when he was appointed President of the Board of Trade at the age of thirty-eight. A die-hard Tory MP called him ‘very clever’, but not too clever – ‘a Sahib’. This MP tried the experiment of inviting the political newcomer to stay for a tennis weekend. ‘I like the Lloyd-Greames as a couple not quite entirely,’ he decided. ‘Across all their actions is written the words “Get On”.’ When his wife’s uncle, the last Lord Masham, died in 1924, she inherited the Swinton estate in Yorkshire, as well as the cash her grandfather had made from inventing the Lister nip comb (which revolutionised Victorian wool-spinning). Lloyd-Greame changed his surname by Royal Licence to Cunliffe-Lister, assumed the responsibilities of a hospitable landed magnate, received his first peerage in 1935, and sat in every Conservative Cabinet until 1938. Churchill appointed him as chairman of the wartime Security Executive in 1940, as Resident Minister in West Africa in 1942 and as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in 1952.21
Swinton’s elder son was killed in action in 1943, and the younger son, a wartime squadron leader in the RAF, shot himself through the heart in 1956 after years of nervous troubles. Macmillan, who spoke with tears in his eyes to Butler about his only son Maurice’s wrestling with alcoholism, felt for the Swintons in their double loss. As Prime Minister he was always pleased to see Philip Swinton, whose judgement he thought peculiarly sound and whose vitality he envied. His visits to Swinton Park – a battlemented, impervious, northern house, which symbolised all that he wished to seem – were a highpoint of his calendar. ‘One of the reasons one loves a holiday on the moors is that, in a confused and changing world, the picture in one’s mind is not spoilt,’ Macmillan wrote to Mollie Swinton after one shooting break. ‘If you go to Venice or Florence or Assisi, you might as well be at Victoria Station – masses of tourists, chiefly Germans in shorts. If you go to Yorkshire or Scotland, the hills, the keepers, the farmers, the farmers’ sons, the drivers are the same; and (except for the coming of the Land Rover) there is a sense of continuity.’22
Macmillan embraced change, although he cherished surface continuities, thought his Foreign Office minister Ian Harvey. The Prime Minister ‘understood people, and he cared about them. He knew that politicians who pretended to be ordinary were not respected by the electorate.’ He had also learnt before 1940 that his party and the electorate mistrusted showy cleverness, but admired panache, ‘even if they did not know the meaning of the word’, Harvey judged. ‘Above all he understood the make up of the Conservative Party and although he was highly intelligent, he treated stupid people kindly, and there were plenty about in the political field.’23
Realising that character is more reliable than brilliance, and that cleverness disrupts political continuities, Macmillan strove to have a balanced government, with members who would never dazzle. As Secretary of State for Air, for example, he appointed (in 1957) George Ward, brother of the Earl of Dudley. ‘Poor Geordie! However, he is hard-working & brave, but not quite quick enough for modern life.’ As Chancellor of the Exchequer he appointed (in 1958) Derick Heathcoat-Amory, whom he judged ‘an awfully nice fellow – rather slow, but very sensible’. To the post of Minister of Power, Macmillan appointed (in 1959) the Earl of Halifax’s youngest son, Richard Wood: ‘poor Richard (though a charming character) is not very clever’. Wood was undeniably valiant: he was the solitary minister who voted in favour of decriminalising homosexuality in 1960; his masculinity was irreproachable as both his legs had been amputated after being blasted by a landmine in Tunisia.24
Although it proved an electoral mistake in the early 1960s to have a patrician administration full of Scottish earls with such recognisable place names as Selkirk, Dundee and Perth, it was purblind to assume that such men were uninteresting or second-rate. Geordie Selkirk, Macmillan’s First Lord of the Admiralty in 1957–59, was shrewd, resilient and adept, although easy to underrate because he had no taste for self-advertisement. He had read PPE at Oxford, studied at the universities of Paris, Bonn and Vienna, graduated in law from Edinburgh University, practised at the bar and became a QC. At the age of twenty-eight he was commanding officer of the RAF’s City of Edinburgh bomber squadron. By his early thirties his expertise in housing and employment problems was recognised by his appointment as Commissioner for Special Areas in Scotland. After war came in 1939, Selkirk was chief intelligence officer to Fighter Command and personal assistant to its commander-in-chief. In 1944, piloting a Wellington bomber above the Bay of Biscay, the aircraft was attacked by five Junker 88 fighters: the windscreen was shot out but Selkirk took deft evasive action – and survived another half century. He was the only member of the staid Athenæum club to marry a captain of the British women’s ski team. Promoted to the Cabinet by Eden, his support for Eden’s Suez policies was the most anomalous of all the Cabinet, for he was a man (like his fellow Scottish earl, Perth, at the Colonial Office) with staunch independent integrity. Macmillan thought him ‘a fine, earnest man’, and did right to trust him. Similarly, the Earl of Dundee, whom Macmillan selected as Minister without Portfolio in 1958, and as Minister of State at the Foreign Office in 1961, was no duffer, despite his resemblance to Bulldog Drummond, pace a journalist who saw him dealing effectively with Patrice Lumumba during the Congo crisis of 1960: ‘a tall handsome presence with a square jaw, a clipped moustache and greying hair’.25
There was an assumption that self-made businessmen made more efficient, canny and decisive ministers than the privileged sons of rich men. Some, however, proved as vain, bombastic and calculating as might be expected of men who forsook the boardroom for the public platform. The foremost example was Ernest Marples, who joined Macmillan’s first administration as Postmaster General in 1957 and brought automated letter-sorting and subscriber trunk-dialling to British communications. Two years later Marples reached the Cabinet as Minister of Transport. Just as Belisha beacons commemorated a prewar Minister of Transport, so parking meters were the innovative street furniture that symbolised Marples’s power. The grandson of the Dukes of Devonshire’s head gardener at Chatsworth, and son of an engine fitter, he was educated at a grammar school in Manchester’s suburbs. One of his earliest jobs was as gatekeeper at a football ground in Manchester. He made money as a London property developer converting Victorian houses into flats before starting a construction company called Marples Ridgeway, which specialised in docks, power stations and motorways. He married his secretary, and used prostitutes. His self-confidence was boundless. He imagined himself taking large, sure strides towards a great destiny. His appetite for seeing his name in headlines never slaked. A bicycling and fitness fanatic, he died at the age of seventy. John Boyd-Carpenter, the Minister of Pensions, never saw Macmillan laugh more than at a Cabinet meeting when a name was mooted for a public appointment. ‘Does anyone know him?’ asked the Prime Minister. ‘Yes,’ volunteered Ernie Marples, ‘he once made a proposition to me. I didn’t accept. It wasn’t quite straight, and anyhow there was nothing in it for me.’26
Macmillan, who had been a railway company director before Labour’s nationalisation in 1947–48, trusted Marples with the bold scheme of transport rationalisation that was intended to prove the modernity of the Conservatives in the 1960s. The ramshackle railway system was crushed by its accumulated debts and operating deficit. The British Transport Commission, which had a mishmash of responsibilities for running railways, docks, canals and London transport, was ill-managed as well as submissive to the National Union of Railwaymen and Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. Both unions disrupted services with exorbitant pay claims and enforced a regime of restrictive practices: their conservative obstinacy made Bournemouth Tories seem progressive.
Marples convinced Macmillan to appoint a bracing new chairman of the British Transport Commission named Richard Beeching, an accountant who was technical director of ICI (Beeching’s annual salary of £24,000 aroused the envious carping in 1961 that then characterised Britain). The choice of Beeching proved calamitous. He was not the infallible cost accountant as pictured by Marples, but botched his analysis of railway costs, and proved cocksure yet unimaginative in his thinking. His recommendations to close one-third of the 18,000-mile railway network were published in March 1963, and endorsed in one of the Cabinet’s worst decisions: his proposals were based on false premises, fudged figures and dodgy political expediency; they moreover failed in their purpose of securing the railways on a profitable basis.
‘A really remarkable figure,’ Macmillan wrote after a two-hour meeting with Marples in April 1963. ‘I only wish we had more ministers with his imagination and thoroughness.’ However, controversy over the Beeching Axe brought obloquy upon his government, partly because the ministerial presentation was self-advertising, truculent and weak. ‘When Mr Marples presented the Beeching Report,’ noted a future Labour minister, George Thomson, ‘the biggest thing of its kind, we were given to understand, since the Beveridge Report, the operation was intended to show the Conservatives looking forward to the seventies, while the socialists, tied to the railway unions, timorously looked back to the forties. But Mr Marples muffed it monumentally, and suffered a press universally worse than I can remember a minister receiving.’ Macmillan, despite his susceptibility to territorial grandees, was hoodwinked by the bouncy self-promotion of rough diamonds, and the myths of infallibility boomed by self-made men.27
Derick Heathcoat-Amory’s appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1958 was a better choice by Macmillan than Marples as Minister of Transport in 1959. The assessment of Heathcoat-Amory by Lord Altrincham who, under his later pen name of John Grigg, was one of the canniest political commentators of his generation, had a perfect justness. ‘He is often described as “sound”, an adjective which in this specialised usage connotes a decently concealed intelligence, more than average efficiency, a willingness to take pains (for instance, in not hurting the feelings of moronic colleagues), a belief in good relations between management and the (not so easily) managed, a fine war record and a squirearchical background. There is, indeed, one feature which might make him suspect – he is opposed to the death penalty – but his friends can plead in mitigation that he has been a zealous huntsman. He is the sort of man who not being first-class pretends to be third-class, and so receives a quite disproportionate amount of credit for being top second-class.’28
What of the England and the parliamentary party of which Macmillan took charge in 1957, where men became Prime Minister by pretending to be old-and-done-for and Chancellor of the Exchequer by concealing their intelligence?
In the spring of 1957, Macmillan saw a newspaper story about a seventeen-year-old man, Derek Wiscombe, whose home town of Jarrow-on-Tyne had suffered high unemployment since the 1930s. Wiscombe had applied for a licence to carry furniture and building materials with the intention of passing his driving test and buying a lorry to replace his pony and cart. His application was however rejected after objections from local hauliers, and the state-owned haulage company Pickfords. Macmillan, who never lost his sympathetic interest in the north-east, was vexed by this example of tyrannical regulations protecting vested interests from competition. He prompted William Elliott, the newly elected Tory MP for Newcastle-upon-Tyne North, to organise a fund to pay for Wiscombe’s driving lessons and buy him a lorry. With Elliott’s help, Wiscombe successfully re-applied for a licence to carry furniture on a lorry bearing L plates. A local businessman was induced to pass Wiscombe some business for starters. Macmillan closed the file with the single word: ‘Good’. A few months later, the municipal council at Jarrow found that one of its tenants, Norah Tudor, was supplementing her husband’s income by doing embroidery at home. The council ordered her to stop. ‘Mrs Tudor is the wife of a worker who earns a good salary,’ declared the socialist chairman of the local housing committee. ‘It will be no hardship for her to give up her needlework.’ As a Tory backbencher commented, ‘this utterance (which Mr Harold Wilson himself could hardly improve on) conveys the politics of envy in a nutshell’. The persecution of Derek Wiscombe and Norah Tudor both occurred in Jarrow, but the mean, restrictive spirit shown by these cases was a national force.29
England was a country where the gravy served at main meals made everything taste alike. Dominated by the memory of two world wars, it was more drilled and regimented than at any time in its history, and more strictly regulated. Restaurants and pubs were controlled under onerous rules derived from the Defence of the Realm Act of 1914; audiences stood in respectful silence when the National Anthem was played at the end of every cinema performance; pedestrians still doffed their hats as they passed the Cenotaph memorial to the war dead in Whitehall; family-planning clinics did not dare to give contraceptive advice to the unmarried; every foreigner had to register with their local police station, and report there regularly; businesses needed clearance from the Bank of England for the smallest overseas expenditure; there was a rigid obsession about preserving fixed exchange rates for sterling; the system of Retail Price Maintenance safeguarded shopkeepers from undercutting, and ensured that shoppers could seldom find competitive prices. Though entrepreneur John Bloom was trying to start a consumer revolution with his cut-price ‘Rolls Razor’ washing machines, the English authorities still frowned on mass consumption, and by imposing taxes that at some levels approached a hundred per cent of income, discouraged it all too effectively. Millions of people were longing to make money, spend money, enjoy the conspicuous spending of money and never apologise for money; but both officials and politicians, whether of the left or the right, wanted to restrict money-making, idealised discomfort as character-building and frugality as manly, scowled at other people’s expenditure, thought that the ostentatious enjoyment of wealth was shameful. It’s No Sin to Make a Profit was the title of Bloom’s defiant memoirs.