Michael Foot, M. P.

Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights; Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.' HOW often, since Michael Foot's nomination as Labour candidate in the Ebbw Vale by-election, must Hugh Gaitskell's thoughts have run along these lines. For he knew that Foot was not only in the habit of thinking but had a disconcerting way of speaking his thoughts out loud. He would go down to the Welsh constituency and fight the election on a policy of more socialism and, worst of all, in support of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Hugh Gaitskell and his friends have said that to put a unilateralist policy before the country would be electoral suicide. Again and again they have declared that the mass of Labour supporters were not in sympathy with the Scarborough decision on defence. The latest to say so was Mr. Woodrow Wyatt. 'We are saddled', he declared, with a ridiculous unilateralism • • which is anathema to the voters'. • Ebbw Vale gave its answer loud and clear, and the lie was killed stone dead.

What happened ought to have been a sharp lesson to the enemies of socialism. When the people really know what they want, no flood of hostile propaganda can turn them from it. For a fortnight before the by-election the full blast of Tory publicity was turned upon Ebbw Vale. No effort was spared by the press to bludgeon the voters into rejecting Foot and his policies.

First we were told that his campaign wasn't going too well; his manner was donnish and dry and made no appeal to voters who had been accustomed to Aneurin Bevan's exuberant personality. Then we heard that Ebbw Vale was not really Left wing; they had voted for Bevan out of a dogged loyalty, nothing DO MARXISTS OPPOSE THE ONLY FOR CAPITALISM?

A couple of weeks ago you published a letter from Student' dealing with Gaitskell's gibe about nuclear disarmers not asking for Russia to give up the bomb.

Although I agree with the general points made by "Student' (that Gaitskell was talking nonsense and that no socialist could advocate unilateral abandonment by the Soviet Union, in present circumstances, I am not clear about the reasons for his remarks. He or she seemed to suggest that (a) we advocate unilateral action by this country only because it is capitalist and (b) the only reason why we do not advocate similar action by Russia is because she is a workers state.

At the same time as this letter appeared, another was published in Tribune accusing the Socialist Labour League of wanting to 'not abolish the Nuclear Research Establishment but sanctify it with the Red Flag'. Now this is a stupid lie but Marxists must be able to say why it is a lie. What worried me about the comrades letter was that it was capable of being misinterpreted in such a way as to lend support to the lie.

It is obvious that genuine socialists are committed to the defence of Soviet Union, a workers' state achieved by proletarian revolution, but this in itselt does not prove the need for nuclear defence. This need arises from the world situation (imperialist H-bombs and rocket bases' in 'Student's' words). Secondly, socialists do not advocate nuclear disarmament for Britain just because she is a capitalist country (although this might be one good reason but because we believe that this country cannot be defended at all by the H-bomb.

Of course, Gaitskell can't see this any more than he can tell the difference between a capitalist and a workers' state!

Oxford. ANOTHER STUDENT.

ER PAMPHLET After Scarborough THE BATTLE BEGINS PECTS AND TASKS FOR THE THE LABOUR PARTY By G. Healy Price 2d.--From Clapham more. When Bevan renounced unilateralism they had been solidly behind him; now they would show their dislike of it by staying away from the polls.

Crossbencher of the Sunday Express came right out in the open and told Labour voters to 'demonstrate their loyalty' to Gaitskell by 'plumping for Mr Emrys Roberts', the Welsh Nationalist candidate. In spite of it all, however, the fact had by-and-by to be faced that Michael was going to win.

When matters got desperate James Callaghan went down to the Vale to throw a last-minute spanner in the work by trying to whip up feeling against unilateralism. According to a Daily Telegraph reporter he turned a Labour mass meeting 'into a bear garden'. Said one Ebbw Vale man after this performance 'Gaitskell doesn't want to see Michael Foot in the House of Commons; he used Callaghan to do his dirty work for him."

Then, as a last forlorn eve-of-poll hope, Mr. Peter Thorneycroft took a hand at Tredegar. The Tory Minister of Aviation condemned Foot's unilateralist line and urged Labour voters either to 'vote for someone else on this occasion or abstain'. Ebbw Vale showed what they thought of all these shabby manoeuvres.

Among the men and women about Hugh Gaitskell there are many who are fat and sleek-headed. No doubt they sleep pretty well o' nights. And if they never alarm anybody by thinking too much, certainly they are dangerous-to the cause of socialism and human survival. Last week Ebbw Vale gave the whole pack of them a swift kick in the pants with a vigorous Foot.

BIRIIAIN PEIARICE

Rour Bv R. PERRY