page 2

—Reply To Letter

Labour Club Rubbished

Fresh thinking, Mr. Shand, Is what I am looking for. A political club in a University can be a constructive force for good, and there is no reason why your club, and the others, should not be just that.

In your letter in the last Salient all your attention was devoted to attacking small points in my argument: that you ignored my major point—that there is a need for "constructive ideas about public affairs"—strikes me as indicating that you certainly do not disagree with me it also seems significant that I since my article appeared, notices have appeared indicating your ' intention of holding a series of study groups on Party Policy.

A commendable step . . . taken without any prodding?

Apart from ignoring the central theme of my argument, you go, as you say, "wide of the mark" in attempting to demolish particular points.

For. I am not as you suggest, Mr. Shand, confused. You suggest that I am at variance with the facts when I accusc you of mudslinging and lack of creative political activity.

To deal with mudslinging first. You suggest that Mr. Kirk's meeting upset me—it did. What is more I will agree with you in maintaining that criticism of the present government is a perfectly legitimate activity, but I will go further to say that in a University at least. It should be done well. The material raised by Mr. Kirk was suitable for an impressionable public at election time, but at a time like this, students can hope, and as far as I could ascertain, did hope for a more objective and helpful approach. Why is it too, that you make no defence for the debate?

And creativity. At your annual General meeting, held the day before my article appeared and after it had been printed, the actions of your committee at the meeting strongly bore out my basic assertion, and I wondered—what were you trying to achieve? The best members could do was to drop the names of a series of big noises, pontificate upon them, and then decide to get them to deliver addresses. Wouldn't it have been of more help to yourselves, if you had worked out what you had wanted to achieve, and then selected speakers accordingly?

From only one member of your club did I hear a glimmer of a penetrating thought. He was the elderly gentleman who suggested a topic which you could come to some conclusions on to advantage. Disappointingly, the idea was childishly treated. The club taking the approach. "Who could we get to talk to us about it?" Even then, when you did strongly consider someone he was a senior and respected public servant who would probably have been limited in the amount of personal criticism he could offer, due to the restrictions of his post. Surely a study group, or research project would have been a belter approach!

The addresses given by Mr. Nash and Mr. Nordmeyer which I acknowledged in my article, were I agree, very interesting, and we had so as to speak, the official Labour Party viewpoints delivered right to the back door. Hut your activity should not finish there. Why not evaluate their assertions in the light of the present situation of the Labour Parly?

I note your comment on the formulation of remits for the party conference. Although I had been aware of your activity in this direction, no indication of it was given to your members at the A.G.M. I would he very interested to know how much research and thought went into the formulation of them, and how much they are someone else's ideas which you took up uncritically.

Also. Mr. Shand. sophistry is hardly annulled by hard work. In fact I would venture the opinion that sophistry flourishes in eleclion campaigns, where you say your club devoted its energies. Surely your ability al debating would make you aware of that!

Regarding your questioning of the ? number present at Mr. Kirk's meeting, I find it rather significant that our staff member who reported that meeting and who had his report printed before I saw it, camc to substantially the same conclusions as I. He informs me that he counted 65 in the theatre at one time, and used it as the figure of the number present in his report. Your figure may have been based on different calculations.

So sir, you accuse me of making remarks so wide of the mark that in future I ought to think before I make sweeping statements. Thanks for the homily, but maybe it applies to you.