MR. GEORGE BROWN gratuitously gave the game away on television
the other night, when he was asked about differences in the Labour Party over foreign policy. His reply was to say, in effect, that, the party leaders had taken darn good care that there would be no visible differences, by sitting up half Thursday night to iron them out. And this, I think, is one reason why the Opposition's 'triumph' in the House on Friday rang so hollowly outside Westminster. As The Times (playing Tadpole to Taper?) said in its leader last Monday, 'for many thinking and sensitive people there is a feeling of relief when Parliament rises for a recess'; and the reason is that the electorate, like Sir Hartley Shawcross, has realised that 'a great deal of Parliamentary time is occupied by sham fights on matters irrelevant to our real problems.' Elsewhere in his weekend speech Sir Hartley said : 'It is . . . fatal to have . . . merely a Tory foreign policy, or a Labour foreign policy; there ought to be a British foreign policy.' I agree with his con- clusion, but surely it would be a good thing if to start with there was a Tory foreign policy and a Labour foreign policy. After reading last week's debate, as far as I can see there is neither.
Previous page
