LABOUR AND POLITICS

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1634, 28 December 1912, Page 4

LABOUR AND POLITICS

. Sin. J6hn Elindlay, >ho is at firesent on k visit to Australia, has been telling' tjie people of New. South Wale's something about the New Zealand Labour Party arid its prospects. Sir John apparently is pessi-: miatid. In replying to a press interviewer, he referred to., the split between the so-called Uftited Labour Party arid the Federation 6f Labour, arid expressed th<s opinion that unless tie breach was healed the prospects of. Labour controlling the politics of New Zealand were very remote.- "If,-" he added,'"the present prosperity continued amongst -the' wage-earning class of New Zealand, and there was an absence of that struggle and adversity which had giveh tho Labour Party in New Zealand ite memorable lift in 1890, it was, perhaps, riot too much to say that Labbiir in New Zealand would not, within the next decade, achieve anything like .the ascendancy it had attained in New South Wales,- and some of the Australian States'. This view naturally is Somewhat unpalatable to the gentlemen who, imagine" they control the destinies of the Labour Party, and the 'National Organiser" repudiates the ideas expressed. Incidentally, he appears to havo had his suspicions aroused as to the motive behind Bib John Findlaz's pronouncements. In an article, published in a contemporary, he declares with great eriiphasis that the United Labour Party is not going to make any alliances with any political party—that, it is "in the field for the organisation of Labour, independent of any alliances, inutiial Undertakings, or co-opieratiye ar- ' r'aiigemenfcs with any political party of any sort whatsoever not directly answerable to the .United Labour Party." One would almost imagine that.the-writer suspected Sir John of desiring to induce the. Labour Party to abandon its hope of forming an independent political organisation, arid to come once more under the", banner of, the discredited "Liberal" party of which, he was at onetime so distinguished an ornament. If such were his intention,' he surely was a little hasty in raising the question at the' present moment. It is still too fresh m the minds of, most of the members of the Labour Party that they were nothing more than the tools of the Continuous Ministry for a great man)' years when iri alliance with the "Liberal" party, and that they had no real share in. tho framing of the policy of the then Government, and such with very little consideration at its hands. In a, year' or two these unpleasant facts might have been forgotten, and Labour might have oqnie obediently into heel once riiore, but it is! overearly to raise the suggestion just now. . v.

The "National Organiser" of the United Labour Party does not minoe words in' making this quite clear : "The hope of the.Labour movement in New he writes, /'depends upon maintaining an attitude of uiifailing opposition to all other political parties and of inaugurating and carrying forward a determined aitd systematic campaign for reaching the nearly half a million workers in New Zealand not now identified with any Labour organisation whatsoever." The public may be forgiven . if thev derive a little amusement from the somewhat exaggerated figures .and unconscious humour .of the . "National Organiser." Thti nearly half a million workers, outside the existing Labour organisations, which it is hoped to rake into the ranks of the Labour Party, represents something like oiiehalf the total population of the country, men, women, and..children included. The Electoral Census of last year showed that there, were BOOjOOtf nidoCbi'H tirirollod; but Wio total of actual electors waa no doubt

muoh less, aa many names probably appeared on mora than one roll. It is ploasing to note, however, that tte "National Organiser" at any rate now classes as "workers" all those who are outside tho charmcd oirclo of the trades and labour organisations; That is surely a concession from those who in the' past have takeil Up the attitude that the' crily persons entitled to the dignity of the title of workers wero those who' ranged themselves under the banner of one 6r other of the labour organ-' is&titiris. As a matter of fact, there ardj of bourse, many time's more workers outside the ranks of tho Labour Party than .there are in them, and that will continue to be the cas<j until tho" Labour Party secures leaders who will command public respect and confidence iri their capacity to administer the affairs of the cduritry to tho'advantago of the people as a whole. , It would be absurd to pretend, whatever .may be their merits as private individuals, that the leaders of the Labour movement in New Zealand at the present time carry any. real weight outside the little circle in which they happen to move. They have, with few exceptions, shown themselves more skilled at creating strife and turmoil than in commanding attention for tfieir .knowledge of public' affairs,- breadth of. views, arid soundness, of judgment. Sir John Findlay was right in at least one matter. Labour has nt> particular grievance in New Zealand at the present time. In most respects it is particularly well off just now,- and the mischieftnakers who live on industrial strife at the expenso of employer and employee must, find their task a difficult one. ■ 1