SIR,—Surely Mr. Gaitskell has made his views clear? It is
the critics and commentators—the Spectator as well as Messrs. Foot and Mikardo—who are confus- ing matters.
Quite simply Mr. Gaitskell makes two points: (1) The Labour Party does not propose to nationalise everything, and why therefore should it say other- wise in its constitution? Amending the constitution, however, would not rule out further measures of nationalisation which the party might think desirable for a specific period of office.
(2) The Labour Party's Socialism is concerned with many important issues besides 'the common owner- ship of the means of production and distribution,' but there isn't a single word about these other issues in the constitution.
Nothing that has been said since the Blackpool Conference has weakened these points.—Yours SILVAN JONES
Hafdre, Penrhos, Bangor
Previous page
