GUNNING FOR GAITSKELL
.Sin.—I wish Bernard Levin would step tantalising us. Whom, exactly, did he have in mind when he referred, in his piece about the defence debate, to 'those members of the Parliamentary Labour Party who-arc active Communists'? To suggest that there are undercover Communists working as Labour MPs `to further the policies of the Soviet Union' comes pretty close to making an accusation of treason. It also brings to mind an unpleasing image of the late Senator Joe, shouting that the State De- partment was full of Communists and waving a blank sheet of paper to prove it. Mr. Levitt's charge is a serious one, and .I think he owes it to his readers (and to the Labour Party) to substantiate it.—Yours faithfully,
K I.NNETII TYNAN 120 Mount Street, W1
[Bernard Levin writes : 'I wish Kenneth Tynan would stop being so faux-naïf. He knows as well as I do that there are undercover Communists ("under- cover" is Mr. Tynan's word, not mine, but it is a good one) in the Labour Party in Parliament (and outside). He also knows that, except in the cases of Iwo or three, it would for obvious reasons be im- possible to prove this in the case of, say, proceedings for alleged libel. Mr. Tynan also shows a lamentable misunderstanding of the significance of Senator Joe. McCarthy was a liar and a hypocrite, inventing charges against innocent people for his own ends; but the activities with which he charged them did exist. There had been Communists in the State Department, even though he never found any; McCarthy's greatest offence was to make it impos- sible to get rid of the right ones in the right way. Incidentally, I am not suggesting they have com- mitted treason. I am just suggesting that they ought not to be in the Labour Party.'----Editor. Spectator.]
Previous page
