Correspondents are advised that their letters are more likely to
be read, and indeed more likely to be printed, if they are brief and to the point.
Shallow deep down
Sir: Terry Pitt's review of Dick' Taverne's book, The Future of the Left (January 19) is interesting not so much for what it has to say about the book itself (which is very little) as for what it reveals about Mr Pitt and the Labour Party.
A whole paragraph is devoted to the present whereabouts of George, Gwyn, Jim and Bill. Is Mr Pitt trying to impress us with the fact that he is on Christian name terms with all these tnen? — Or does he wish us to believe in this false cameraderie as a serious inducement to join this savagely divided movement? In any case he does make the reading of an already obscure article more difficult for those of us who have not yet acceded into the Magic Circle.
Mr Pitt refers to the Lincoln byelection by employing a footballing analogy. It seems that all Labour did at Lincoln was to concede a corner. One is tempted to ask exactly what would be needed to score a goal. Perhaps if Oswald (Sir Oswald Mosley) had stood and won the seat whilst John (Brother J. Dilkes — the sacrificial lamb who carried the Red Banner at Lincoln) not only failed to obtain a single vote but then resorted to the razor blades recommended by Jonathan (Guinness), then that might have been considered a goal. No, Mr Pitt would argue. A mere rebound against the cross-bar to be picked up and cleared towards the political strikers.
Unfortunately for Mr Pitt Dick Taverne not only scored a goal at Lincoln — he scored a penalty goal after being viciously brought down in the area by an awkward and unskilled defender. The bovine adherence to extreme left-wing views displayed by the local Labour Party and by Mr Pitt himself was followed by thousands of fans through the media and emphasised Labour's position as the West Ham of the top league.
Mr Pitt then goes on to discuss Roy (Jenkins). He loves his disdain for fools (implication being that Mr Pitt himself feels the same disdain). But he is put off by his accent, his friends and his habit of twitching his sleeves when talking to hoi polloi (presumably both Roy and Terry — `Mr Pitt' now sounds too uncomradely —have clearly defined and not dissimilar views as to what constitutes hoi polloi). Terry is perhaps fortunate in not twitching his sleeve in the company of his inferiors, but perhaps even his best friends won't tell him!
One feels that Terry's studious avoidance of any attempt to make a thoughtful criticism of Dick Taverne's book is simply that he knows that the sort of left he and the Lincoln Party represent has no future whatsoever.
To say that there are no differences of substance between the Parliamentary Party and the Annual Conference is like saying that Brian Clough and the Board of Derby County are the greatest of friends. Surely by now Roy, Reg, Shirley and others have made it clear even to Mr Pitt that they believe that the Labour Party has been bullied into submission by trade union extremists and that whilst these men have the pper hand the chances of Labour being able to put forward a workable radical alternative are nil.
Terry cannot hide his disapproval of Roy and his friends and yet his criticism fails to examine or discuss what they are saying. Instead he restricts himself to their personal idiosyncrasies. The truth is that if Terry is right about Roy's inability to suffer fools gladly, then if ever he were to take charge of the Labour Party Terry might well find himself making a very real contribution to a counter inflation policy by joining the ranks of the unemployed. For even if his article tells us nothing about Dick Taverne's book it does show that so far as Terry's own intellectual ability goes as Gore Vidal said — deep down he's real shallow.
Tristan Gavel-Jones Martin Top Farm, Latimer, Chesham, Bucks.
Previous page
