The first editorial of the May lst issue of The Economist is entitled "The necessity of Mr. Brown"; and as can be expected from its title it goes on at great length to defend Mr. Brown and his Department of Economic Affairse For Labour Party members it is the conclusion of the article which is most relevant:
"There remains a final danger. It is the danger hanging over the personal position of the First Secretary of State. He has remined some kudos this week, as he has persuaded some big unions formally to align themselves with his policy. He attracts real loyalty from a wide section of the Labour movement, and a real degree of affection from quite a wide section of the electorate outside it. But some grounds persist for the suspicion that Mr, Brown is not personally beloved by the Prime Minister.
"The political world is buzzing with rumour that if Mr. Brown commits any more personal indiscretions, Mr. Wilson will be only too happy to drop him. If Mr. Brown did disappear, a lot else might disappear with hims the idea of an incomes policy, the (generally) reformist influence of fhe D.E.A. in many fields of policy, perhaps even the D.E.A. itself, This would be a great misfortune, both on personal and institutional grounds. However infuriating and unstable Mr, Brown can often be, he is still at present an indispensable figure to all reformers who hope that some good may still come from this Labour Government. No other minister is so likely to bang the table, and speak up for his backroom staff's reformist and forward= looking ideas = even when those ideas clash with the double-jointed political manoeuvring which is too many other Labour ministers! interpretation of a statesman's natural role, The disappearance of this minister and this ministry are things that must not be allowed to happeneee”