what would you do with Middlesex ? the term merger in London labour circles does not refer to financial alliances or newspaper closures , it refers to the joining of Middlesex with London in the London labour party back in 1951 . prior to 1951 , the Middlesex constituency labour parties were organised in the southern region of the labour party . the London labour party concerned itself only with the administrative county of London . at a special conference of the London labour party held on December 21 , 1950 , it was agreed by a large majority that Middlesex , if it so wished , should in future be associated with the London labour party . with only two dissentients the Middlesex parties supported the proposed merger at a further conference held on January 30 , 1951 . the rules and standing orders of the party were amended to meet the new situation . special provision was made to preserve certain rights for Middlesex on purely Middlesex matters . at the annual conference , the delegates representing Middlesex parties held a special voting card and certain issues were discussed and decided only by the Middlesex parties . a Middlesex county committee was set up as a sub-committee of the executive . teething troubles . the merger brought its problems . no one would deny that . but gradually the teething troubles abated and by 1960 , the executive went to annual conference with successful proposals to amend again the rules and standing orders which governed voting procedure . the special provisions which allowed for the conference to be split up ( not split ) into London and Middlesex sections , were swept away . the party in London and Middlesex had become pretty well integrated . in 1958 , arising from the Wilson committee on party organisation , a proposal was put forward by the national executive committee to set up a regional council for the Beds , Bucks , Berks , Herts , Middlesex and Oxfordshire area . Middlesex parties would be severed from London and become part of a new set-up . at the 44th London labour party conference in 1958 , a motion tabled by the Enfield labour party was carried as follows : - this conference urges upon the national executive committee that no useful purpose would be served by the severing of Middlesex parties from the London labour party . now it is significant that this motion was tabled by a party which lies on the most northerly extremity of Middlesex and borders on to Hertfordshire . the London labour party and the constituency labour parties in Middlesex by a very large majority opposed the proposed separation of Middlesex from London . the mutually beneficial effects of the merger were by this time apparent . as a result of our opposition , the national executive abandoned its earlier idea and decided to leave Middlesex with the London labour party but to set up a regional organising area covering the same area as proposed for the regional council , which council has not been established . in consequence , constituency labour parties in Middlesex now have to look to Hemel Hempstead on party organisation questions and to the London labour party on other matters . the present situation has many defects . deputation . organisation , policy and party administration can not easily be separated . there is confusion in the Middlesex parties as to who should do what . take the recent Middlesex county council election . the policy on which the election is fought is the responsibility of the London labour party executive , the production of posters , leaflets and that kind of thing is undertaken by the executive and the payment of grants to parties in need is another job for the London labour party . but where do you draw the line between producing the policy and the propaganda points and selling them to the party and the electors ? twelve months ago a deputation met the representative of the national executive and pressed for a review of the present Middlesex set-up so that the inherent difficulties in the structure could be overcome in readiness for the Middlesex election . following a resolution carried at the annual conference in February this year pressing for an organiser for Middlesex , and following a resolution of the executive in May pressing for more effective machinery in Middlesex , Bob Mellish , Joe Barrow , Mrs Forbes and I met the Chairman of the organisation sub-committee of the national executive committee and the national agent for a very full and frank discussion on the party structure in Middlesex . we await the outcome of that meeting . royal commission . the difficulties facing the national executive are recognised . there is not a lot of money available for the appointment of an additional organiser whose responsibilities would be entirely devoted to Middlesex affairs . the report of the royal commission is out and we all await some indication of the government &apos;s policy on local government in greater London . the structure of the party would inevitably bear some relationship to the outline of local government in the area if there should be changes . so , the national executive is inhibited from embarking on a long term solution to the Middlesex problem pending the outcome of the royal commission report . on the other hand we can not postpone the Middlesex question indefinitely . a general election could well be with us before the shape of local government in greater London is settled . and we can not blandly assume that the L.C.C and the Middlesex county council are doomed to disappear . the northern home counties idea has not worked . the Middlesex parties feel no pull towards their comparatively rural neighbours . the closer community of interest , the lines of communication , the social and economic factors are all much more akin to London . the case for having Middlesex as a strong trade union and industrial base for a new regional council was demolished when the idea of a new regional council for the six northern home counties was abandoned . the justification for keeping Middlesex in the little six is really to maintain some paper-equality of numbers of constituencies in each region or organising area . what about alternatives ? one solution would be to revert to the pre-1959 position in which Middlesex would be re-integrated with London . the difficulty here is that such a solution would not give Middlesex a full-time field man working exclusively in Middlesex . Middlesex is a marginal County and needs County-wide marginal treatment . Middlesex needs to nurture a Middlesex consciousness and County pride . the political parties have a heavy responsibility in this direction . Middlesex is a very important urban County . the national executive recognised this when it proposed to include Middlesex in the new region . another solution , drastic and perhaps not immediately favoured would be to sever Middlesex from the London labour party and set up a Middlesex labour party along similar lines to the London labour party . there are , of course , obvious financial problems attaching to this proposal but they would have to be resolved . or , a Middlesex federation of labour parties working within a regional council covering the northern home counties might be considered as a possible solution . the London labour party executive and its Middlesex county committee are much concerned about the whole thorny problem . we must all of us examine the question on the basis of what is likely to be best for the party and not on how best can we have what we hold . a labour Middlesex county council is just as desirable as a labour L.C.C . the recapture of Middlesex in 1964 will bring joy to the many friends of Middlesex in London . but we must plan and devise the means of that victory now . midsummer of 1963 will be two years too late . inside County Hall with Hazel Rose . are we such bores ? it may be pure coincidence , but in the last few weeks , a number of people have asked me whatever makes you interested in local government ? - it &apos;s so dull ! an image of drains , slums , endless committees , innumerable housing cases , bureaucratic control , is seemingly evoked in the mind of the average citizen , when surveying the scene . a councillor is a worthy do-gooder . somewhat limited , always elderly , and usually a bore ! to be acceptable to the general public as a politician , one must be able to converse fluently and intelligently on atom bombs , apartheid , Algiers , the African problem , or the general prevailing economic situation . just to be acceptable - one should always refer to Hugh , Frank , Michael or Herbert : and relate the latest anecdote reflecting a particular facet of the personality of these better known gentlemen - and one &apos;s own intimate connections with the top people . otherwise it might not easily be recognised that one &apos;s true ambitions lie across the river , and that local government is merely a lay-by , on the road to Westminster . if it is suspected that this is not the case , then one is hastily dismissed as a crank , and an oddity - and ignored from then onwards . why ? what is it that makes people look upon local government as dull , unexciting , and unrewarding ? and the people involved , as failures in the grand national stakes - or just non-starters ? an Englishman &apos;s home is his castle - to a Londoner it &apos;s more likely to be an L.C.C flat or perhaps the prospect of one . but either way , where he lives , how he lives , what rent he pays , is surely a matter of the utmost concern , not only to him , but to anyone with the slightest civic conscience . equality of opportunity is no longer a clich&amp;eacute; of the left , but a principle accepted by all thinking people - irrespective of party . schools , and all the attendant problems of education should be of the greatest interest , not only to enable an individual to have the advantages ( often denied to his parents ) to lead a fuller and more satisfying life ; but for the greater part he can play in building up this country . if the health of the community is neglected , physical and social activities of young and old are not adequately catered for : however improved our material standards of living may be , the telly , the washing machine and the car , will not bring increased happiness to our increased leisure . nor will they eliminate the mounting frustration , boredom loneliness and tension , felt by an increasing number of people . perhaps it is the knowledge of this fundamental truth - that real happiness and satisfaction is found in doing for others , that enables councillors to labour on year in and year out , unpaid , unrecognised , in what must appear to others to be a thankless and unrewarding task . does this sound priggish , evangelistic , dull ? yes , to a mass of people fed on a diet of sordid sex details , sensational divorces , violence and crime . yes , to those people caught up in the fiercely competitive aggressions of our affluent society , where the goal is more money , and the profit motive , ephemeral pleasures and cheap thrills are the main reasons for living . local government is live , human and intensely satisfying work . those people successfully involved in it are equally live , human , and fulfilled by their efforts . their values are all right , Jack - what about yours ? a tribute to Harold Clay . it is with deep regret that we pay a last tribute to a great friend and colleague who has passed on . who was this man and what was his claim to our gratitude and affection ? Harold Ewart Clay devoted his life to the labour movement in its widest sense . tramways . from his earliest years he was an active trade unionist and labour party worker . however , it was not until 1920 that I first knew of him . he was in Leeds and I in London . in that year his union - the tramwaymen &apos;s union - amalgamated with others to form the united vehicle workers &apos; union ( U.V.W ) , and my union , the London carmen &apos;s trade union amalgamated with others to form the national union of vehicle workers ( N.U.V.W ) . he was an officer of the U.V.W , I was an officer of N.U.V.W and so our ways were set to meet . merger . both unions were trying to serve the interests of all forms of road transport , and it was inevitable that fierce rivalry would lead to conflict . Harold in his union and I in mine , together with many of our colleagues , believed that this conflict could only be solved - and the best interests of the membership and the community at large be served by a wider amalgamation . 