SIR,—I have always voted Conservative (sometimes, admittedly, with reluctance, as
one avoiding the worse alternative), but there are times when I de- spair of the party. The hysteria which has been aroused by Angus Maude's article in your issue of January 14 makes this very emphatically one of those times.
Mr. Maude wrote an intelligent, reasoned account of the Opposition's predicament. No one who looks at the subject without partisan blinkers will fail to recognise his picture as accurate, fair and well- intentioned. But in consequence he has been vilified by Conservatives, not because they essentially dis- agree with what he wrote (one has often enough heard similar ideas from intelligent Conservatives of late), but because it seems he has broken the dear old public school code and 'rocked the boat.' The spectacle of the party howling down a thought- ful and constructive contributor to what should be its central debate is deeply depressing. It also furnishes a telling comment on the criticisms of Con- servative publicity which were published by the Bow Group at the same time. Of course Conserva- tive publicity is inferior to that of the Labour party, but that is not entirely the fault of the party's pub- licists, however inadequate they may be or have
been. It is mainly the fault of the party speakers who have no time for major themes because they are too busy shouting about trivialities and person- alities. These people should ask themselves the question: 'What is a political party—a club for overgrown schoolboys or a serious association for the attainment of important political objectives?'
Mr. lain Macleod was even more viciously abused than Mr. Maude when he courageously told the truth about a dark passage in recent Conservative history (also in the SPECTATOR, all credit to it). But in doing so he performed a historic service to the party.
EMMA BURDEN
Hills Road, Cambridge
Previous page
