I SAID LAST WEEK that the Tory Party's Challenge of
Leisure had stolen the Labour plan 'almost in its entirety.' Now that the Labour document (Leisure for Living, Labour Party, 2s.) is out I see that I exaggerated. The Tory plan is a series of woolly generalities, couched in a mixture of the Prime Minister's more patronising tones and a line old flavour of Philistinism. And what is more, it invites one to wonder why none of their pro- posals has been put into effect in the last eight years. The Labour plan is a very different affair• To begin with, when did we last see in a party pamphlet such tine testiness as this'? :
A competition for their [English Electric's] new offices on the Gaiety Theatre site was won by a
firm of architects who submitted 'forthright ' modern designs'—and the company rejected theni all in favour of a dull, conventional, and cumber" some design which will ruin the look of the Strand island site.
Of course, I might ask in turn who allowed cent Harris to ruin not only Whitehall but the area for miles around with the new Board of Trade, perhaps the most deplorable building put Up in Britain since the war, and if I did ask the answer would be, `The last Labour Government.' but motes and beams apart, the Labour document does have a vision of the part the arts can and should play in the national life—a vision that is lacking from the Tory plan. And what is more Important, the plans—for theatre, building, sport have clearly been worked out in great detail, and may even, if the Labour Party wins the elec- tion, actually be put into effect. In other words, l-abour's Leisure far Living is a serious contribu- tion to the discussion of the subject it deals with as well as to the election campaign.
Previous page
