Letters to the editor
Stonehouse replies
From John Stonehouse, MP Sir: To ask Terry Pitt to review my'hotik Death of an Idealist is rather like asking a High Priest to deliver a judgement on a heretic who rejects the dogma of the Church. He is incapable of being objective.
Mr Pitt reveals his deep prejudice by referring at length in his 'review' to matters which have nothing to do with the book. In his anxiety to misrepresent my position he reveals that he has committed the cardinal (if I may use the term) error of failing to read it. It is not correct, for instance, that the 'bulk' of the book is concerned with banking and export dealing. My account of the experiences with the British Bangladesh Trust, and business which are essential to an understanding of subsequent events, is not referred to until halfway through the book at page 117 and all references to my business activities cease by page 151. Only about thirty pages out of 240 can be construed as dealing with "banking and export dealing."
Mr Pitt is also wrong in suggesting that my vote in National Executive Committee elections was derisory. In most years that I stood 1 was second or third in the list of unsuccessful candidates and I was well placed to win in a subsequent year if I had done what other candidates have done, namely to make progressive noises to appeal to the left wing just before Conference.
That Mr Pitt should seek to justify his prejudice is not surprising. He actually sought selection as the new candidate in the procedures conducted. by the Walsall North Constituency Party (and now condemned as being invalid by Transport House) when it appeared that my seat might become vacant. He was rejected. But he remains enmeshed in an attitude of mind which refuses to accept that there might be another side to the story and which condemns compassion and understahding as dirty words. Any compromise with the heretic would appear to such party faithfuls (and Mr Pitt was a full-time Transport House official for many years!) as sacrilege and must be firmly rejected as questioning the very basis of their own commitment. No dialogue with the heretic; he must be stoned out of the Temples of the official religion.
I hope your readers will not judge me vicariously as Mr Pitt has done but, before they condemn me which they are entitled to do at least read Death of an Idealist first. As Mr Pitt has told them nothing about the book they might be in for a few surprises! John Stonehouse House of Commons, London SW I
Previous page
