The issues Mr. Lieber cites are all, with a single exception, questions of opinion rather than fact. Nothing obligates an analyst to choose an average of "major polls," and I used the poll which was featured by The New York Times in its pre-election coverage. Mr. Lieber, of course, is entirely right in correcting the figure I cited for the SNP, and I apologize for the error. But his third point, like his first, is one of interpretation--Labour was officially anti-Common Market and should a referendum be held, I would expect the party to strongly recommend British withdrawal. Mr. Lieber's fourth point is certainly his weakest. As in the U.S., British political parties espouse official platforms and Labour's 1974 platform does represent a militant swing to the left compared with its past positions. Whether or not this swing will be translated into action depends on many factors, but it would be wrong to suggest that it hasn't occurred on the level of policy. As to Mr. Wilson's possible successors, the thrust of my whole article was that the official "leaders" of the party are no longer in effective control of either party or national policy. If Wilson's successor is a "moderate," he might try to reverse this swing--but such speculation is fruitless.