‘Observer’, a regular columnist in the Financial Times, had this to say on January 7th about the rumour that John Freeman was to relinquish the editorship of New Statesman: < ENTION of statesmen, of
course, ‘brings me to the other supposed newcomer to diplomacy, Mr. John Freeman. Freeman, an old Wilson intimate, will I am sure make an ideal emissary East of Suez—that region so close to the Prime Minister’s heart. But this would mean a new editor for the New Statesman. “Freeman, who has become a very moderate left-winger with the passing years, has quite altered the old rebellious voice of the Statesman. Unilateralism went out straight away, and the paper has in recent weeks been the Government’s most intelligent apologist. His likely successor is Paul Johnson, though there could be opposition to him from the surviving bomb-banners; though no extremist, Johnson is more passionate and less predictable than his chief. “Any younger alternatives are likely to be tougher and further left —Freeman sometimes refers to them as “my young thugs.” Nagging from Great Turnstile and chats from the bank manager in Belgrave Square — the prospect from Downing Street cannot look inviting.” Week readers will have received the news: that John Freeman is resigning from the editorship of the New Statesman with some pleasure. The paper had been pursuing a rightward course for some time, and had increasingly frequently come down from its traditional position on the fence, on the wrong side. Most of us would far rather see someone like Michael Foot, who is at least as good a journalist, and a rather more consistent socialist. Since nearly all of us read the New Statesman regularly, we should be entitled to write in, sending our opinions to the Board of the journal. Kingsley Martin has returned to England to help select the new editor, and Leonard Woolf should also be open to suggestions from left-wing readers who wish the paper to remain on their side.