The latest information would indicate that Enoch Powell did not write all the articles in The Times appearing under the name ™ Conservative". Dut of greater interest to socialists is not who wrote the articles but why they were written at this particular time. One would think that on the eve of the General ‘Jlection with the tide running against the Conservative Party that such critics would bide their time. The most obvious explanation for contradictory behaviour is that a section of the Tory Party have lost hope in winning the election and are more interested in a battle for power within the party even if this ae jeopardises still further the chances of a Tory victory. One migh at line of thought a stage further and speculate whether or not, in fact, this section of the Tory Party would prefer a Conservative defeat and are working for this end.
It is hard to believe that that the author(s) of the articles in The Times really mean what they says Is anyone really serious about advocating denationalisation of all nationalised industries as a long term objectives the ending of all housing subsidies; the dismantling of the Beveridge social security systomg and abandoning such acts of planning the Tories have initiated (location of industry policy, regional development, differential taxation, NEDC, NIC, etc.)?: Whilst differonce on these policies do reflect different tendencies in the employing classes, it would appear that the extremeness (admitted by Imoch Powell himself) of the arguments is motivated by inner-party considerntions, The author(s) must have calculated that the Home leadership would be extremely embarrassed in the lower rarks of the party by all this. Furthermore, the unfavourable publicity(and the giving to the Labour Party of a stick to beat the Tories with on the very eve of tho Greater London electiond must have been foreseen. So woe are left with the conclusion that here we have accomplished politicians engaged in a struggle for power within the Conservative Party and = are willing to jeopardise that Party's election prospects for this Cnde
Such is the demoralised state of the Conservative racked by dissension because of the weakened position of British capitalism. We are, of course, on neither side in the crisis of policy of how hest to rationalise British capitalism ; tut we are vitally concerned with these strugglese They present both tremendous opportunities and a particular danger. In the face of thi isarray in the direct representatives of our enemy we can afford to much bolder and decisive. After all one of Powell's accusations boils down to the claim that the present leadership of the Tory Party have grudgingly accepted Labour!s reform policy and even the coneept of national planning. The left wing are thus in a very strong position to push the fight for more nation alisation, etc. But perhaps it is the danger inherent in this situation which should concern us most: if decisive sections of the employing classes accept the likelihood of Labour's victory, the next step will be for them to seck some kind of understanding with the Labour leader ship, with 'give and take! on both sides. Can we doubt that within the Labour leadership, there are mon who would sorely tempted to do a deal? It is our job Pn is absolutely impossible.
yi
;
Ee piano
ae