NATIONALISATION AND PROPAGANDA SIR,—I do not understand why the Spectator,
which is supposed to be an independent weekly, employs Mr. Charles Curran as its chief political commentator. He is about as independent of the Tory Central Office as a tortoise is of its shell. His article this week is typical. described him, a fair-minded man, he sets forth both its strength and its weaknesses. Mr. Curran, being a propagandist, just picks on the weaknesses. In fact, Mr. Gaitskell says of the earlier traditional arguments, 'It still remains true that nationalisaticin of the means of production, distribution and exchange should assist the advance to greater equality, contribute to a full employment policy, associate with the power to make important economic decisions a far greater sense of national responsibility, ease the development of industrial democracy, and diminish the bitterness and friction in economic relation- ships.'
He then proceeds to set forth in detail and to define the 'efficiency' arguments in favour of nationalisation, though he also discusses the problems and criticisms and he indicates the kind of criteria which should be applied in deciding whether or not nationalisation is advisable.
Finally, he expounds the idea of a spread of public ownership through the State acquisition of shares and land either directly or in lieu of death duties, an idea first put forward by Mr. Dalton over thirty years ago.
Presumably, this objective treatment of a subject in which the pros and cons are care- fully set forth is what Mr. Curran calls fog. Being a pure propagandist himself and hav- ing no interest in truth, he simply cannot understand how any politician can write something which does not come down 100 per cent. on one side or the other. It makes him, unfortunately, a peculiarly dull and monotonous political commentator.—Yours faithfully, A USTEN ALDU House of Commons, SW1
[Charles Curran writes:. can understand Mr. Albu's eagerness to recommend himself to Mr. Gaitskell; and he is quite right, of course, to rely on discourtesy when he engages in argument. But I hope he will do better in both respects. Discourtesy apart, his letter simply confirms my own verdict on the pam- phlet—namely, that its elaborate ambiguities permit of varying opinions about it. Mr. Albu's gallant assertion that it is all as clear as day- light will, I conjecture, make Mr. Gaitskell smile. He may well conclude, quite rightly, that he has in Mr. Albu the most eminent follower on record since Miss Marie Lloyd set out to follow the van.']
Previous page
