Labour and Leaders.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16225, 4 July 1918, Page 6

Labour and Leaders.

The split in the English Labour Partyshows that organised labour, as TPpresented by the trades unions, has revolted against the gang of pacifists and defeatists who have been endeavouring—whether wilfully or blindly we cannot say--to play the Germans* game, and have tried to mislead the English working-classes ' and exploit them to gain their own ends. The vast majority of British wdrkers aro loyal to the core, and it is largely to their doggedness and trustiness that we shall owe the victory which the Allies are going to ,win for civilisation. And, needless to say, they have no time for the Hun. The men of the British Mercantile Marine," who have suffered most from his unspeakable Hunnishness, have shown the world how he ought to be, treated. The British "defeatists," who even.after the object lesson of Brest Litovsk, Are bleating about a "peace by negotiation" with the Germans, are not likely to receive any support or countenance from the sturdy and outspoken , Mr Havelock Wilson, or the indomitable seamen who are daily facing death in order that the world may be rid of German militarism, and all the infamy that is wrapped up in the system.

Even in this conspicuously loyal portion of the Empire, we find men aspiring to be Labour leaders, who are possessed with the extraordinary delusion that the way to get the workers' support is, as far as they dare, to hinder the winning of the war. In 1914 there was the possibility of forming a genuine Labour Party in New Zealand —a party with ideals which would have commanded the respect of moderate and right-minded people, a party which would eventually have had a good chance of being entrusted with the government of the country. It is obvious that party lines cannot in future be drawn in exactly the same way as they were before the

war. The time was ripe for the rise of a thoughtful, sane patriotic Labour Party, representing what is best amonp the more thoughtful workers in New Zealand. To give that party any weight in the country it -was necessary that those who were to be its leaders should come forward as British patriots determined to fight for British freedom, and with the resolve to win the war inscribed on their banners. Unfortunately, the golden moment was allowed to slip. The only voices heard professing to speak on behalf of Labour were those of political agitators and carpet-baggers, some of whom, so far from helping to win the war, were later to find themselves in gaol for sedition. These persons do not represent the genuine workers of New Zealand. We doubt if ono worker in a hundred really believes in them. What we do not understand is why the great dumb, motionless majority does not rise up and, becoming articulate for once, declare that such usurpers must go. Mr Holland, who managed to get elected for Grey the other day on a defeatist programme, is now appointing himself the spokesman of all the Labour organisations in New Zealand, and inviting them to bring their grievances to him, so that he may lay them before Parliament. They could hardly take their wants and grievances to a less promising quarter if they really wish their representations to receive attention. So long as tlie Labour Party is in the hands of demagogues of the Webb, Holland, and McCombs type, it will neVer make any headway, because tho great mass of the electors will have nothing to do with it. Tho electors of the future will, to a very large extent, be returned soldiers, and tho friends and relations of those who have fallen in the war. How is it likely they will aver, identify themselves with » party

which while the war was on was chiefly remarkable for its attempts to belittle and nullify our soldiers' efforts?