R. REGINALD PAGET is not normally regarded as a left-winger.
In all our pilgrimages back and forth from Aldermaston, we never met him. Among all the angry and apologetic letters in Tribune’s correspondence columns, we never found his signature. We never heard of him selling little left-wing papers outside meetings, or signing appeals and petitions for colonial freedom-fighters in imperial prisons, or shouting loud interejctions at party conferences.
It is, therefore, all the more interesting to listen to what he has to say about Labour’s present foreign policy, if such it can- be called.
“T am a little embarrassed,” he said, “to introduce a discordant note in what seems to me to be a phoney engagement between the two front benches. My objection to the White Paper is that it is almost exactly what I would have expected from the Leader of the Opposition if he were still in power. I am still waiting for some explanation as to why Labour Party defence policy, which was worked out over a number of years, has been abandoned and Conservative policy adopted in its stead.” There was Opposition laughter at this point, as well there might have been.
He went on to say that if the Government did not fulfil its election promises, then Nuneaton and Leyton would not be the nadir of our misfortunes: they would be only the beginning. At this point there were Opposition cheers: and no wonder.
Later in the debate Mr. George Jeger said that the nuclear deterrent worked to maintain the peace. The White Paper also accepted that nuclear bombers and Polaris would be maintained; and accepted responsibility for providing facilities for German training in Britain. He welcomed these changes in policy.
May we echo Mr. Paget’s concern and perplexity? In the age-old dispute about whether Conference or the Parliamentary Labour Party controls policy, the stock argument of the right has been that MPs are answerable only to the electorate. They are elected, it has been argued time and time again, on a programme which gives them their only mandate. All _this has now been blown sky-high. Mr. Paget rightly wants to know why our election policy has been abandoned and that of the Tories embraced.
Our view is that this is a good question. We are in favour of taking over the assets of the capitalists, not their liabilities. Their policies can scarcely be included among their assets.
Sponsors Frank Allaun, M.P. Perry Anderson Chris Arthur Julian Atkinson Michael Barratt Brown Norman Buchan, M.P. Neil Carmichael, M.P. Raymond Challinor Henry Collins John Daniels Peggy Duff Richard Fletcher Ray Gosling Trevor Griffiths Eric Heffer, M.P. Ellis Hillman, L.C.C., G.L.C. Dave Lambert Ralph Miliband Stan Mills Jim Mortimer Tom Nairn Dick Nettleton Stan Newens, M.P. John Rex Ernie Roberts Alan Rooney David Steele E. P. Thompson Tony Topham William Warbey, M.P. Raymond Williams Bert Wynn Konni Zilliacus, M.P.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST JOURNAL Year 2 - Number 7 Emile R. Braundj International trade and a strategy for the working classes Theodor Prager Two possible strategies Lelio Basso Social democracy today Goran Therborn Power in the kingdom of Sweden Sebastian Herkommer Working class political consciousness Antonio Jose Saraiva Portugal Tom Nairn The Labour Government in peril Lucien Rey The crisis in sterling Jean Marie Vincent Problems of socialist strategy Price 4/6 per issue—f1 for 6 issues 19 Greenfield St., Dunkirk, Nottm.
March 10, 1965 — THE WEEK
Mr. Wilson writes to
The following duplicated statement
was sent to The Week from the Prime
Minister’s office in response to our
petition on the Vietnam crisis:
VIETNAM
“As the Foreign Secretary made
clecar in Parliament on February
8th, the dangers of the situation
in Vietnam were not created by the
action taken by United States and
South Vienamese aircraft against cer-
tain military targets in North Viet-
nam. This carefully limited Ameri-
can response to the provocative
attacks made on their military per-
sonnel in South Vietnam only drew
attention to the gravity of dangers
(Our
“The first need is some indication,
on the part of the North Vietnamese,
of readiness to compromise. As the
Foreign Secretary told the House of
Commons, it would be much easier to
consider any ideas of this kind if the
Viet-Cong were first to stop fighting.
Once anyone cam see any prospect of
an agreed basis for a settlement, there
will ‘be little difficulty in devising the
means of negotiation.”
We do not think that this state-
ment requires any comment in view
of the recent uprovoked attacks by
the U.S. on North Vietnam.
that have existed for years.
is.)