letters to the editor . democratic socialism . Michael McCarthy and Frank Platt in their open letter to labour party members refer to socialism and the new defence policy without at any time defining socialism , except in vague platitudes and general sentiments with which no-one would disagree . and they do n&apos;t write a word on defence , which only in the slightest degree differs from the tory government &apos;s present policy . for example , the tory party and Mr Gaitskell insist that the main plank in our defence policy must be that we stay as junior partners to the Americans , who have consistently opposed any disarmament , despite the Russian &apos;s offer to accept any western proposals on control , provided we agree to disarm . this has led to the position of Mr Gaitskell and his supporters , which I presume includes Mr McCarthy and Mr Platt , who say give up the British H-bomb and rely on the American H-bomb , and provide the Americans with bases from which nuclear weapons can be used . this conflicts completely with the official policy of the labour party , which flows from the obvious assumption that there can be no defence against H-bombs , particularly for our small island , and that therefore a defence policy for British people must be designed to bring about a reduction of world tension and an atmosphere conducive to negotiations for effective world disarmament , which can not be achieved if we accede continually to the demands for military bases from the main opponents of disarmament , the Americans and the Germans . your correspondents suggest that the doctrinaires are in a minority in the party , and refer to local M.P.s , who support the official policy , but rather peculiarly do not mention the Oldham labour party or Mr Leslie Hale , who are both on record in support of the labour party conference decisions . why is this ? could it be that our two friends hesitate to suggest that Mr Hales would be a party to any policy which is not designed to maintain both peace and British independence ? Mr McCarthy and Mr Platt also suggest that the campaign for democratic socialism came into being because moderates have lacked an organised voice . must we presume that they have n&apos;t noticed that 95 per cent of the press support the moderates ? what policy differences have our democratic socialists with the tories and liberals ? none ! just vague platitudes ! they say that the benefits of the affluent society should be used to assist the less fortunate , and that stress should be given to public as against private interests . what , precisely , have they in mind ? increases in taxation of the rich , to increase old-age pensions ? what would that other democratic socialist , Woodrow Wyatt , MP ( who a few days ago advocated relief for surtax payers ) say about such class legislation ? how can you guarantee that industry will operate in the public interest while it is privately owned ? our two democratic socialists regard the public ownership of industries or services as a useful technique to be justified on its merits . no liberal or tory would disagree with such a vague platitude . socialists advocate public ownership as the only means of ensuring that we have n&apos;t two classes in society , one that produces the wealth of the nation but does not receive the fruits of their labour , and the other class who own industry , but do not play any part directly or indirectly in the production or distribution of the nation &apos;s wealth . our democratic socialists make a clarion call to all members of the labour party to make themselves heard . for what purpose ? to influence the policy of the party ? how can this be done when our democratic socialists deny the right of members of the party to determine policy , when they insist that no-one has the power to dictate to the parliamentary labour party . which must mean that the parliamentary labour party has the right to dictate policy to labour party members . clearly our two democratic socialists are suggesting that the labour party should give up its heritage as a democratic party of the people and adopt not only the essentials of tory and liberal policy , plus a few harmless platitudes , but also tory organisational principles , who do not make any pretence of allowing tory rank and file members any part in deciding policy . R Seddon . P O early closing . is it not time that the ancient custom of sub-post offices closing on Tuesday afternoons was abolished and replaced by closing on Saturday afternoons ? we find the present arrangement under which parcels and air mails have to be sent specially to Oldham general post office on Tuesdays very inconvenient , and there must be many firms in Oldham who are inconvenienced in the same way . business firms must be among the largest users of the post office , and their requirements on Saturdays are usually small . J Baggs , managing director , John Baggs electric Ltd . O H G S places . I wonder if the town council are prepared to state why the places to the Hulme grammar Schools have been so drastically reduced . I suppose the excuse is economy ; if so , why not a similar reduction in the Manchester places , as with fare and dinner grants the cost for each child must be greater than any other . why pick out one school from four to reduce ? why not a fairer scheme of a few places from each ? I shall be interested to see their reasons if they will give them . ratepayer . implications of the new housing bill . Mr Frank Platt &apos;s recent patronising offering in your columns on the subject of the government &apos;s new housing bill , was a pathetic attempt to divert your readers &apos; attention from the main contention of my recent letter - namely , that the number of local authorities who have managed to resist pressure from socialist councillors against the introduction of a differential rent scheme is still alarmingly small . surely Mr Platt &apos;s ingenuity extends a little further than such phrases as there is much to be said both for and against differential rents and local conservatives who can not take time off from screaming emotional slogans about wealthy council house tenants , when attempting to defend the complete lack of any test of a tenant &apos;s means before allocating ratepayers &apos; money to the relief of rent . or does Mr Platt realise already that there can be no defence against such indiscriminate and amoral use of public money ? certainly his compatriots in the labour party would do well to grasp the fact that the onus is now very definitely on local authorities to consider all sections of the community of ratepayers when formulating their rent policies , instead of merely where political advantage may be gained or lost . Mr Platt seems terribly confused in his analysis of the new housing bill , though he is certainly right in the drawing attention to the apparent inconsistency of redistributing the additional &amp;pound;3 million by which the housing subsidies &apos; bill rises every year , i.e to cover new building , and failing to redistribute the existing &amp;pound;61 million . one suspects that the government was wary of the immense administrative difficulties involved in tinkering with subsidies which local authorities , after all , have already taken into account when arriving at a rent for existing property , i.e &amp;pound;22 1 s for slum clearance , &amp;pound;10 for one-bedroomed houses suitable for old people , and &amp;pound;32 for overspill building . the annual increment of &amp;pound;3 million will now be distributed in the form of a general grant of &amp;pound;24 , or &amp;pound;8 for all new houses , instead of a grant for specific purposes as previously , and this apparently Mr Platt has not fully understood . seen in this context , his assertion that this &amp;pound;3 million is entirely taken up by slum clearance , etc , is somewhat inaccurate . the net results of this redistribution of housing subsidies will be , first , that the existing arrangements which unduly favour the larger towns with a relatively high number of pre-war houses compared with rural authorities who have done most their building in the post-war years , will be severely modified . thus the anomalous position whereby rents of council houses are higher in rural areas than in the big towns , though the incomes of tenants are almost certainly lower , will be swept away . secondly , those authorities which are unable to pass the financial needs test proposed in the bill ( i.e , where rent income calculated on the basis of twice the 1956 gross value of all the particular local authority &apos;s houses exceeds annual expenditure and receive the lower subsidy ) will be induced to utilise all possible rent resources to balance their housing revenue accounts . it is surely justifiable for the bill to assume that a local authority is adopting a reasonable rents policy , and collecting in rents an income which is equal to twice the 1956 gross rateable value of their property , while pursuing an adequate scheme of rent rebate for the benefit of their more needy tenants , financed by a rate-subsidy which would be smaller than hitherto . finally , I can not agree with Mr Platt &apos;s contention that the yard-stick proposed will lead to unnecessary exchequer spending . even allowing for the unlikely contingency of building costs continuing to rise at a precipitous rate , and local authorities suddenly finding that their rent income falls short of housing expenditure to the extent of their qualifying for the higher exchequer subsidy , there is provision in the bill for a yearly review of the situation to take account of the effect of further building by each authority . Mr Platt significantly fails to suggest any alternative to the 1956 gross rateable value test , however arbitrary this figure admittedly is . all candidates in impending municipal elections would do well to prepare themselves for such questions as , is the rate subsidy we are paying being used for the purposes for which it is intended ? , and is the exchequer subsidy distributed to those who need it , or alternatively , is it merely utilised to bring about a general reduction in rents , regardless of the income of tenants ? for these are the type of questions to which every ratepayer might justifiably expect a favourable answer . Councillor Keith W Taylor . a word for Waterloo . as a former head girl prefect of Waterloo School I think someone should put a stop to all this idle gossip about the pupils . at any school you will find the odd one or two bad ones who spoil it for the rest , and in this case all the pupils are getting blamed for things unruly children have done . this can not always be blamed only on staff but on the slackness of the parents , too . teachers have heard so much gossip about Waterloo that they are frightened away . I can not blame the fourth-formers for wanting to spend the last month of their school life at their own school . nothing can be gained by this protest because they can not help it if teachers will not stay at Waterloo , but my point is that all Waterloo pupils are getting blamed . no wonder there are fights at their new schools if people are looking down on them because they had to leave Waterloo . all this gossip is due to one or two disobedient children which you will find at any school . you &apos;re not telling me that all schools are perfect except Waterloo , because I know better than that . ex-prefect . why stay ? when elector and southerner have finished pulling us to pieces , I would like to ask them what &apos;s keeping them here . if they so heartily disapprove of filthy Oldham , why do n&apos;t they go back down south , where children always have a handkerchief and go to school well scrubbed with the soap that we have never heard of . who do they think they are kidding ? Dorothy Moss . I feel I must answer southerner &apos;s statement that Oldham must be the filthiest town in Britain . I was born in London , so I am also a southerner , although I have lived in Oldham for more than 30 years . has southerner ever arrived in the early hours at one of the London stations ? I doubt if he would be able to walk out of the station without falling over bottles and litter . 