The Financial Times devoted its second editorial to that A.E.U. the day that union's national committee opened in Worthing (April 27th). It: first noted what it called the “alarmingly swift recovery" of the Communists. Pointing out that Reg Birch did much better in the latest contest for the presidency than in the previous election it concluded however; "There is no real danger of a Communist take-over of the A.E.U. at this stage." But, it went on, "...there are two dangers in the current situation. There is a strong possibility that a militant (but non-Communist) left winger, Mr. Ernie Roberts, may win the election for general secretarye.eeand there is also the possibility that Mr. Percy Hanley, a right-wing member of the union's executive may lose his seatec.." This would, the paper continued, significantly alter the balance between left and right.
The editorial, not being designed for 'popular' consumption does not paint a scare picture. It tries,from the point of big business, to soberly assess the position. It, therefore, concludes that the biggest danger from these developments is that the union's leaders will attempt to ‘appease the militants.' In this light it speculates that South Wales steel strike and the Raleigh strike might have been handled differently, had it not been'for the current crop of elections, But the sting is in the tail. The last sentences of this very revealing piece run: "But two lessons emerge. First, the price of liberty in the unions is eternal vigilance. Secondly, so long as the 4.E.U. retains its present constitution one must expect outbursts of militancy and policy vacillation in election years,"