LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
From: Sir Cyril Osborne, MP, C. Gill, Benedict Birnberg, Lillian Ross, Maurice Green, Michael Ledlie, Stella Hourmonzios, James Currey, Shaun Mandy, Cranky Onslow, MP, W. P. King.
The Tory Chairman
SIR,-1 think lain Macleod, surprisingly enough. is wrong on two points regarding the Conservative Party chairmanship.
First, he ignores the chairman's primary duty to rebuild the party's strength in local goveinment. That is the essential foundation for national success. Orpington's Liberal parliamentary victory came that way. The party chairman must organise and inspire candidates of character and, proved ability to serve in local government, for this is where the party's strength and weakness lie. It is not something decent folk would 'not touch with a barge-pole,' as in America; it is honourable and important work.
Second, lain Macleod is tragically wrong in saying the party chairman must be in the Lords. That very fact did our party immense harm. The industrial workers want a plain Mr. to lead them (the elder Pitt lost touch with the• ordinary people when he ceased to be the Great Commoner). He should be in the Commons, constantly subject to back-bench opinion. He should have a sinecure office which allows him to be in the Cabinet, but he should not have a department, nor be paid by the State to du party work. The party should pay him if he cannot afford to work for nothing. Edward du Cann is a fine choice, but he must re- main a plain back-bench Mr. if he is to do his job properly.
CYRIL OSBORNE
House of Commons, SW 1 [Sir Cyril has misread the article, which argued only that the Lords was the natural haven in govern- ment. Mr. du Cann's position is naturally not affected and it was stated clearly that he was the ideal choice. Moreover, I am sure that Sir Cyril underestimates the difficulty of having a member of a party with a seat in the Cabinet, but wholly remunerated from party funds. He would be under constant—and justified--attack.—Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
