Archie speaks for the Tories

Sadists of News Quiz strike

IT IS always fascinating to watch someone of allegedly limitless wealth appearing to throw money down the drain. The late Sir James Goldsmith spent millions of pounds to set up his Referendum Party at the last election. Its arguments were so poor that the only effect they had was to persuade waverers like myself to become European- minded. Now we read of a donor to the Conservative Party who is apparently giving GBP 360,000 each month to Mr Hague's ailing little band of political die-hards. This is faith indeed.

Listed as the 14th richest man in England, the donor is named as Mr Michael Ashcroft. Who he? indeed. A senior Tory is quoted as denying a rift between the mysterious Mr Ashcroft and the party fundraiser whose name is Archie. "Archie has done a lot of good, cutting back costs, and we should all live within our means," says this mysterious "source". But who is Archie? You might have wondered in vain, had it not been for the sad coincidence that on the day that the Tory Party benefactor was in the news, the papers were also full of the moving obituaries of Peter Brough, the ventriloquist who made his doll Archie Andrews's fame and fortune in the 1950s. Some might have supposed that if you were unable to keep your lips still while speaking, you would make an unsatisfactory ventriloquist. But Peter Brough hit on the brilliant idea of performing with Archie on the radio. This way, only the producer and his fellow actors could see his lips moving. Educating Archie, a series many of us enjoyed in our childhood, employed such great comedic talents as Hattie Jacques, Dick Emery and Tony Hancock. Mr Brough retired from ventriloquism and set up a textile business in Virginia Water. Many of us wondered what happened to Archie. Now we learn that he has been managing the Conservative Party's finances. Should he not be given a more responsible role? I feel sure that if Archie Andrews were to replace William Hague, the Tories might stand a greater chance of being re-elected. Last time I met Lady Thatcher she was murmuring "A gockle of geer" quietly to herself. She said she was practising - but practising for what, she would not reveal. I ALWAYS enjoy the News Quiz on Radio Four - it's much wittier than the more studied TV version Have I Got News for You? On last Friday's programme, however, they made some jokes about Jonathan Aitken which sent a chill down my spine. First they called in question why he was described as a bankrupt when he still had a house in Lord North Street everyone knows that he does not own the house. Then they mocked the idea of the bailiff taking his watch. "Soon they'll be taking more than that - they'll be asking for his belt and braces," quipped the normally genial Alan Coren. The audience howled with laughter. Then another wag imagined what it would be like when one of the prisoners insisted on playing "Mummies and Daddies" with Aitken, and the chairman Simon Hoggart - another man who normally comes over as pleasant - wished to refine this witticism by reminding the audience that the request would probably be put in less delicate language. Again, the audience loved it whooped with merriment at the idea of a man being completely dispossessed, imprisoned and then raped. I have never met Jonathan Aitken and he obviously did wrong. But did he do such wrong that he deserves these repeated sadistic attacks? Which of us would be able to tolerate the indignity, not just of having a prison sentence in prospect, but of being jeered at while he waited for it. Oscar Wilde in his prison clothes being booed on Clapham Junction station comes to mind the worst moment of his life, he said. Surely Aitken was no more than what the Edwardians would call a Card? What's got into everyone? The News Quiz sadists still hadn't finished. "Don't worry," said one of them - "he won't go to prison, he'll send his daughter instead." The oddest thing about the overreaction to Aitken's sins was the shock expressed that he should ask his daughter to tell a tiny lie for him. I would be prepared to commit almost any sin, including murder, to protect my children . If they did the same for me in return, I would think this as an act of love, not a crime. Bowled over by brilliance THE "politically correct" attitude Disabled People is supposed to banish patronising or cruel attitudes but has the opposite effect. By pretending that blind people are merely visually challenged or that there's no reason why the wooden-legged can't be ballet dancers, the Disabled Lobby creates huge embarrassment - by making us define individuals not by their talents but by their afflictions. That's partly why the choice of 16-year-old Dan Holder to play cricket for Gloucestershire was so cheering. Dan was chosen because he is a brilliant bowler, even though he was born with one arm, not because he had one arm and was just about capable of bowling. Interviewed about it, he's been modest and completely unchippy concerning what some would think of as a dreadful affliction. "I just get on and do things." The point is, he was chosen on merit. Having heard his interview on the Today programme on Friday, his understated courage and skill cheered me up for the whole weekend. Dan is the best type of Englishman, in the Nelson breed. Let Marcelle lead the way IT now looks as if the turnout for Thursday's European Elections will be less than 30 per cent a signal of the Brits' almost total indifference to Europe. The spin doctors could interpret this indifference either way: that the Tories are mad to make an issue out of something which concerns so few; or that Blair is crazy if he thinks he can "get away with" taking us into the euro. The point to bear in mind, however, is that successive Tory prime ministers have signed treaties which make us partners in the European experiment. It's crazy to pull out now; so if you are going to vote on Thursday, vote for the gorgeous, pouting Marcelle D'Argy Smith and the Breakaway Pro-Euro Tories.

Copyright 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.