MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1915. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE THE LABOUR PARTY

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2535, 9 August 1915, Page 4

MONDAY, AUGUST 9, 1915. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE THE LABOUR PARTY

IS declining to join the National Ministry tho Labour Party has made a mistake both from the national and the tactical point of view. The manifesto in which tho party sets forth its reasons for refusing to join with tho two main. parties is a disappointing document. Tho issue with which the Empire is confronted is one that dwindles all ordinary considerations of local politics to nothing. Unless victory is assured, none .of our political parties will have need to worry about the future. They will have no future. The Labour Party in Britain has realised this, and has waived its constitution and its settled policy to cnablo its chairman, Mr. Arthur Henderson, to enter the Cabinet. In its manifesto of Friday our own Labour Party finds fault with tho proportionate representation offered it. "One to nine," Mr. Hindmarsh calls it: but it forgets that the English Labour Party accepted one seat in a Cabinet of twenty-two. Tho principal reason given for tho refusal to join with Mr. Massey and Sir Joseph Ward is a desire to retain full rights of criticism. In addressing his constituents after taking Cabinet rank in Britain, Mr. Henderson dealt with the samo point, and it is interesting to compare the attitude of_ the_ English party, as expressed in his speech, with that of tho Now Zealand Party, as set out in its official manifesto: — Mr. Henderson. Mr. Hindmarsh. He eh-allonged tlio Veconceiveit to be contention that tho in the very best inright of tho Labour tercst of the country Party to criticise that the Labour liatl been sacrificed. eroup should be ab-o-He knew sufllcient of lutelyfree to honestly the movement to criticise any .prorealise that tho ab- posal brought forsence o! criticism ward by tho Coaliwould not bo dictated tion Government; by delicacy or con- criticism of a consideration for their st-ructivo cliaractor colleagues, but he 1S hot only Jcgit-i'-asked those who were mate, but irighly anxious about the desirable. l-icht to oriti'cLso whether orcn _ Ihu Labour or Socialist Party duritic such n. crisis should concentrato their attention exclusively on . cxercisinu the rich), to criticise. (Cheers.) "We aro not goiUE to bo saved rtlloEcthov by criticism." said tho richt hon. ecutloman. "After nil. the saving of tile nation is to mo, and lias been since the war, the question of primary' and essontiol importance." It is obvious that the Labour Party in this Dominion would not have deprived itself of any rights of critioism by joining the Ministry. Its criticism would, however, have been entirely divested of any suspicion of being dictated by party interests. It is also clear that constructive criticism from tho Labour standpoint would lie far more effective and useful if delivered in Cabinet when actions are in tho shaping, rather than on tho floor of the House, when they huvo been given form and direction. By remaining aloof, Labour imposes a double handicap on itself. It has deprived itself of tho opportunity of giving its criticism at the really effective stage, and it has to convince the country that the necessarily inoro or less ineffective criticism of which its members propose subsequently to deliver themselves is directed solely to conserving the national interests, and not to furthering party ends.