C. D. H. Cote WANING INFLUENCE OF LABOUR INTELLECTUALS

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28801, 23 January 1959, Page 8

C. D. H. Cote WANING INFLUENCE OF LABOUR INTELLECTUALS

IBv a Stag Correspondent of the -Svdnep Morninp Herald,"] . « n.kl»4 rtrnuzn nr» In rapanf

London, January 19.—Behind 1 the British Labour Party since its beginnings have been the cascading ideas of- a succession of brilliant Left-Wing intellectuals. Professor G. D. H. Cole, who i died last week, was one of the i best known —a man ' known far outside Britain. Yet with his death comes the question whether the : freelance intellectual’s influence on practical Labour politics now is at a discount. It certainly seems to be. Professor Cole and Professor i Harold Laski were the two real . intellectual giants of Labour i thought of the last generation. ■ And both have died almost certainly feeling frustrated and 1 spurned. Professor Laski was far from : the inner conclaves at the last : Labour gatherings he attended, a somewhat pathetic figure whom most Labour men respected, but no longer heeded. And Professor Cole left a giant’s work behind him—whole shelves of books, whole years of lectures and pamphlets unsought by leading Labourites when it came to policy-making. Lasting Influence Yet the Labour movement owes Professor Cole a great deal, and bls influence in other ways may last for a very long time. His vast theoretical knowledge of labour and trade-union history, disseminated in guides for the i common man. probably will be among the basic educational 1 material for Labour students for i generations. And undoubtedly, in his middle years at least, he made a big impact on Labour theory. Earl Attlee, former Labour Prime Minister, says that in the 1920*s Cole’s 1 ideas on guild socialism influenced , him a good deal. Professor Cole had turned ’ against the ideas of bureaucratic ; State socialism and propounded the idea of “workers’ control.” 1 This attracted many of the 1 younger trade-union leaders, but it was an idea which did not ' reach beyond academic signifi- 1 cance. Again in the 1930’s his attempt to link trade-unionists with Leftwing intellectuals on Labour policy planning was without effect. Yet through all the years of Labour’s ups and downs he always stimulated Labour thought and discussion, and he must have felt that his influence might sooner or later come into practi-, cal policy-making. But it did not. The probable reason is this: that in recent years a whole group of men who consider themselves Labour intellectuals have made their way into the top fold of the i party proper, men who fight elec- i tions, work through the cut and i thrust of debate, men like Hugh I Gaitskell, Richard Crossman . . . < Harold Wilson, maybe. ; Must Work His Passage : The top echelon of Labour is ’ very different ,to what it wax in ' the (heyday of Beatrice. apd ’ Sidney Webb, or in the heydey < of Harpld Laski even. And a 1 feeling has grown within the party that if an intellectual intends to make his mark in La- , hour thinking on practical poll- . tics, he has got to work his pas- j sage. There was a minor outcry re- j cently when it was suspected that j Mr Gaitskell was presiding over a private panel of intellectuals 1 who were not members of Parlia- . ment and accepting advice. These <

has grown up in recent years, te fact, a suspicion of the intel- . lectual freelance who wants to ' provide blueprints, but who deeat ' not want to get his own hand* ' actually calloused in the political ’ struggle. - This .does not mean, however that there will be no contenders for the mantles of Professor Cole and Professor Laski. Some have been there a long time, such as Mr A. J. P. Taylor, others are not far yet from the starting post, such as Brian AbelSmith; some are from the ranks of the economists, such as Roy Jenkins. But it is a long journey to the point gained by Professors Lasid and Cole. And the conditions for the trip have changed so much.