LEFT-OVER LEFT
.SIR,—It was you (or was it Mr. Bernard Levin?) who told us that the big significance of Mr. Hugh Gaitskell's speech at Blackpool—the reason why you felt called upon to applaud him for his courage, Drs political acumen, his statesmanship—was that it marked `his retreat from public ownership.' But now Mr. Gaitskell tells us in his speech at Nottingham that this was a dastardly misrepresentation; 'MR. GAITSKELL CALLS FOR MORE PUBLIC OWNERSHIP, says the headline in The Times, reporting the Not- tingham speech, and the text shows that the headline was accurate.
Oh, sir, how shamefully have you been deceived.
Before you plighted your troth so publicly, could not Mr. Roy Jenkins or Mr. Anthony Crosland have warned you of the Labour Party leader's true inten- tions, so cunningly masked at Blackpool and :0 brazenly revealed at Nottingham? Maybe the ex- planation is that they, too, were swooning victims of the great deceiver.
Anyhow, it's a great day for me. No longer can
your Tapers and your Tadpoles pass me off as a minor fundamentalist prophet, crying in the wilder- ness. A Daniel has come to judgment, lisping some of the same simple, modern truths which you graciously allowed me to enunciate in your columns. This should be a warning to you and your readers for the future. If the Spectator wants to know what our leader will he saying tomorrow, read Tribune today.—Yours faithfully, , Tribune, 222 The Strand. WC2 [This letter is referred to in our leading article on p. 239.—Editor, Spectator.)
Previous page
