Political Commentary
BY HENRY FAIRLIE YES, yes, everyone knows it. The majority in favour of withdrawing the Whip from Mr. Aneurin Bevan was only twenty-nine, and that which defeated the amend- ment by which he would have only been, censured was a mere fourteen—the narrowest of margins. But how this justifies the deduction made by some political correspondents that the Labour Party is now almost equally divided is difficult to show. The first important fact is that the Right Wing remained solid. The leaders had calculated before Wednesday's meeting that they would be likely to get about 140 votes. The fact that they got one more—it would be pleasant to think it was Mr. Edel- man's, but that would be beyond the bounds of credulity— scarcely invalidates their accountancy. To any serious political observer this must remain the paramount fact about Wednes- day's decision. The Labour Party leadership in Parliament has always, in moments of crisis, when the intellectuals might become emotional and the sentimentals might become obtusely intellectual, relied on the hard core of down-to-earth members. The fact which has been consistently ignored throughout the last three years of Labour disputes is that this core has never shown any signs of splitting or of forsaking the official leader- ship. On Wednesday it remained as true as ever. A 1931—a desertion of the leadership by its loyal supporters in the House of Commons—has never been possible and did not occur on Wednesday.
But what, the sceptics will say, of the 112 members who voted against the proposal to withdraw the Whip from Mr. Bevan? Let it be quite clear that the size of this vote is not at all sur- prising. After all, more than a hundred Labour members put their names to Mr. Bevan's motion in the House of Commons which called for high level talks with Russia. Not all of these hundred were, of course, Bevanites, in any strict or loose sense of the word. But it was not unreasonable to expect that they would be open to persuasion that Mr. Bevan, whom they had been ready to follow in February, might be allowed to remain a member of the same party as themselves in March. More generally, it was not unreasonable to expect that a large number of Labour members, by no means Bevanites, might be distressed by the possibility of an open division and might be unable to bring themselves to vote for it. The Right Wing, in their accountancy, had banked on about seventy abstentions. This number was apparentlyo reduced by about twenty. This is the only 'surprising' fact about Wednesday's meeting. But it means almost nothing from the point Of view of the balance Of power in the party. The Labour Party has, naturally and properly, an instinative cohesion. The fact that some twenty members followed this instinct proves nothing more than that Labour members are human and not jut voting machines.
The next step, of course, lies with the National Executive \ of the Labour Party. It seems extremely improbable that the Executive, having seen that the core of the Parliamentary Party is remaining solid, that the ballast is not slipping, will move a finget to rescue the man who has just been shoved overboard. If there was ever any doubt about this, it would seem to have . been removed by Mr. Tom Williamson, the General Secretary of the General and Municipal Workers. His—and his Execu- tive's—blast against Mr. Bevan was the most blatant committal of a power element in a political struggle that could have been imagined, and it is impossible to believe that Mr. Williamson would have done it without much deliberation and without the intention of following it up. It is not as though Mr. Williamson is even the kind of bluff, impulsive trade union leader that Mr. Deakin is. He looks ascetic, as though he has been on strike rations for a year, and he is devastatingly cool and calculating. The announcement from his union on the eve of the Parlia- mentary Party meeting was a clear indication that he' and the rest of the union bosses were out to have Mr. Bevan's blood once and for all. Even if Mr. Bevan were on the Executive to employ his considerable powers of advocacy—apparently on Wednesday he was brilliantly restrained and conciliatory— there is no one on the Executive for him to move.
If Mr. Bevan is expelled from the Labour Party by the National Executive, two questions remain. The first is whether any large number of Labour members will resign with him. The second is whether the decision will be reversed at the next Labour Party Conference. The second question may be answered fairly quickly. There can be no doubt at all that the months between now and next September will be filled with a series of resolutions from constituency parties calling for the readmission of Mr. Bevan. These resolutions are certain to be defeated. Both Mr. Deakin and Mr. Williamson have just in- creased their affiliation payments to the Labour Party and so increased their voting strength. Mr. Gaitskell has not used his position as treasurer of the party to small account, and it is almost certain that a constituency attempt to reinstate Mr. Bevan at the next Labour Conference would be easily defeated. One says this with even more certainty after this week's news that the Yorkshire miners voted to support Mr. Gaitskell as candidate for the post of party treasurer and not Mr. Bevan.
As for the other question—how many Labour members will resign either now or after the next Labour Conference?—this is more difficult to answer. One learns by experience not to inquire too far into the motives of politicians lest the results should prove too disillusioning. But it may be said fairly con- fidently that both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Crossman, for example, however disastrous they may think the withdrawal of the Whip from Mr. Bevan to be, will continue to believe that they can still serve the cause of Socialism best if they remain in the Labour Party. Miss Jennie Lee and such loyal lieutenants as Mr. Foot may feel disposed to share Mr. Bevan's martyrdom with him, but 1 leave it to individual readers to assess the im- portance of such losses for themselves. The Right Wing can, in short, carry through a fairly straightforward victory. But it is now up to them to justify it. One of the strongest arguments for expelling Mr. Bevan has been that his presence in the party has almost made disagreement impossible. Labour mem- bers genuinely disagreeing with the Official leadership have been unable to voice their criticisms vigorously lest they should be suspected of joining in Mr. Bevan's attack on the authority of the official leaders. It now remains to be seen whether the Right Wing can provide the atmosphere and genuinely adven- turous spirit which will enable the Labour Party to form an effective alternative government. I repeat, it remains to be seen. to be seen.
Previous page
