Political Commentary

New Bevanite threat

John Grigg It is unfortunate for the memory of Aneurin Bevan that his name is shared by a young man—Andy Bevan—who most strikingly embodies the present extreme left-wing threat to the Labour Party. Whatever might be said of some 'Bevanites,' Nye himself was a genuine democrat and a passionate anticommunist. His position as leader of the Left was determined far less by ideology than by personal resentment at the promotion over his head of Hugh Gaitskell in 1950.

But the new Mr Bevan is a true communist Ideologue, and his appointment as the Labour Party's national youth officer poses anew Bevanite threat which is different in kind from the old one. If the appointment is finally confirmed at the meeting of Labour's national executive committee next Tuesday (23 November), it is no exaggeration to say that Labour's credentials as a democratic Party will be gravely impaired.

Andy Bevan belongs to the Trotskyist group known as Militants, who now control the Young Socialists' national committee. In his speech at Blackpool Mr Callaghan asked the party delegates if they were satisfied with 4 Youth movement Increasingly dominated b. Y a single brand of socialist sectarianism,' implying that he himself was far from satislied. Yet at a meeting of the NEC, which he attended, on the Friday before the party conference (24 September) Mr Bevan's aPPointment went through, apparently, on the nod. The subsequent move to stop it was initiated not by him but by the National Union of Labour Organisers, understand4.b1V incensed that the job had not been given to one of their number.

How did Mr Bevan's name come before the NEC? The key meeting was that of the st.aff negotiations committee four days prevr.siously, on 20 September, at which Mr uevan was chosen in preference to a party 4!8ent who was the other candidate on the final short list. It is vital, therefore, to consider the membership of the staff negotid. tions committee, and the procedure wherebY it arrived at its perverse choice. Those entitled to attend and vote at the nieeting were: Tom Bradley MP, John Chalmers, John Forrester, Ron Hayward (general secretary of the Labour Party), !rt Hickling, W. John, Alex Kitson, Sam 'IcCluskie, Ian Mikardo MP and Brian tableY (chairman of the committee). In [act, only three of them turned up—Mr S, tableY, Mr Hayward and Mr Hicklingout one other person attended the meeting, ostensibly as an observer. He was Nick Bradley, the Young Socialist representative °n the NEC, and of the same doctrinal persuasion as Mr Bevan.

What exactly happened at the meeting is still a mystery, but there are strong grounds for believing that Mr Bevan was chosen by the votes of Mr Hickling and Mr Bradley, with Mr Stanley opposing and Mr Hayward abstaining. If so, the procedure was grossly irregular, because Mr Bradley had no right to vote.

At the NEC meeting on 24 September the committee's recommendation seems to have been accepted without discussion, presumably because moderates like the Prime Minister were distracted by the struggle to obtain NEC backing for the Government's economic policy. All the same, it is hard to understand how or why, in the four days that intervened between the selection meeting on the 20th and the NEC meeting on the 24th, nobody was alerted to the danger or, if alerted, took any action to resist it.

During the conference an attempt was made to refer the matter back, and this was defeated. But technically the only point that would have been referred back was the declaration of a vacancy in the post of Youth Officer. The statement in Left (the heavily subsidised organ of the Young Socialists) that an attempt to block Mr Bevan's appointment was 'overwhelmingly voted down' by the conference is strictly incorrect, because Mr Bevan's appointment was not, as such, voted on at all.

On 18 October the staff negotiations committee and the party's organisation committee held the first of two joint meetings to hear complaints about the appointment from NU LO (the National Union of Labour Organisers). The first meeting was inconclusive, but at the second--which was held on 8 November--Mr Bevan's appointment was confirmed. The last word, however, rests with the full NEC, which next Tuesday will have its last chance to prove that it is not, in effect, a communist front organ isat ion.

Clearly there would be good reason to rescind the earlier decision if voting in the staff negotiations committee was irregular, and if members of the NEC were unaware of the fact on 24 September. Procedure might be a more expedient basis for corrective action than arguments about personality or ideology, in a committee which has a leftwing (though not, of course, a Trotskyist) majority.

It is easy to say that the Young Socialists, with a total membership of only about 4,100, are so negligible that the ideological bent of the person chosen to be their official organiser is a mattet of trifling importance. But that is an absurd argument. If the Young Socialists are negligible their movement should either be transformed so that it

ceases to be negligible, or it should be disaffiliated. So long as it exists in its present form it will be part of the shop-window by which the contents of the shop are judged, and if its official organiser is a Trotskyist the judgment will be powerfully adverse.

Besides, all members of the party's salaried bureaucracy ought surely to conform to the party's essential philosophy which, though muddled in any number of ways, is definitely not revolutionary. Mr Bevan's opinions and aspirations would be his own affair if he had not sought and actually got himself into, an important paid job at Transport House. But how can he expect to have it both ways ?

Some Conservatives may be tempted to view this murky business with complacency, because of the obvious party advantage that will flow from it. But I cannot see it that way, because British democracy will not survive unless at least the big parties remain firmly committed to it, in fact as well as theory. And if British democracy goes under, what price party advantage?

There can be no doubt, however, that the Conservative Party is now gaining immensely from Labour's drift to the Left. One who has just decided to join the Tories is Hugh Thomas, author of The Spanish Civil War and until recently professor of history at Reading. He tells me that a major reason for his decision is that the extreme Left seems to be capturing Labour's organisation, and unquestionably many others must be reaching the same decision, and for the same reason.

Not all left-wingers on the NEC are serious revolutionaries, and those who are not should reflect very carefully before voting against NULO, and in favour of Mr Bevan, next Tuesday. If they continue to act on the disastrous principle pas d'ennemis gauche they will not only destroy their own party but also damage, perhaps fatally, something far more precious.

They should ask themselves how they would react if a fascist were appointed to a comparable post at the Conservative Central Office. Would they talk about the need for a broad spectrum of opinion and the undesirability of witch-hunts? Of course they would do nothing of the kind. They would scream blue murder, and they would be right. But the situation will not arise, because the Tory Party, with all it faults, is not open-ended towards any extreme.

The Bevan case presents Mr Callaghan with a challenge which he cannot afford to duck. If he offers resistance, even at this late stage, he may succeed in reasserting his authority within the party, but if he offers no resistance—or only token resistance—he will be a blasted figure, and the same goes for all like-minded members of the NEC. To be effective, he may have to threaten immediate resignation, while asking his friends among the trade union leaders to secure the votes of their colleagues on the NEC, some of whom have gone astray through stupidity, idleness or inadvertence. The stakes are so high that almost any risk is justified.