THE ROAD FROM BILLERICAY SIR,—Yet another example of the peculiar
Spectator line of giving the Labour Party ostensibly impartial advice that is suspiciously favourable to the policies and interests of the small group of Labour MPs who happen to contribute to the Spectator:
'Absolute control' of 'effective decisions,' declares Bernard Levin, 'must be finally vested . in the one group chosen by the electorate to be the Labour Party in the House of Commons.' Leaving aside the facts that the members of the Parliamentary Party are meant to represent their constituents and not to decide Party policy; that they include less than half the Labour candidates and were elected by only about half the Labour voters in the country; that they are chosen in many cases by highly dubious methods; and that they neither provide the money nor do the work that keep the Party going—leaving aside these, how on earth can a group of more than 250 people make 'effective decisions' without a much smaller group having considerable (if not 'absolute') control? After all, as we all know, bullies with block votes can be found in the House of Commons as well as in the Annual Conference.
What Mr. Levin probably meant was that he would like to see the 'absolute control' he speaks of 'finally vested' in Mr. Gaitskell and the small group of MPs who happen to be in his confidence—rather as is the case in the Conservative Party. If this is what he really wants, why not say so? If not, what does he really want? It is all very mystifying.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
