The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1918. BRITISH, LABOUR AND "THE SOFTIES"

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 285, 21 August 1918, Page 6

The Dominion. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1918. BRITISH, LABOUR AND "THE SOFTIES"

Thk British National Socialist | Party realises that if Germany should win this war democracy would receive a staggering blow. At its conference, which is now being i held at Stratford, Mk. "\Vill Tyiorne, the well-known _ Labour r leader, condemned the pacifist propaganda, and the report of the executive made reference to the strange_ mixture of pacifism and Bolshevism which threatens to dominate the Labour Party. It is hardly necessary to explain that the Official , Labour Party dors not represent tho opinions of British Labour regarding tho war;,but the pacifist section appears to haves secured control of the party machine, and their political tactics have created a serious Rplit in tho ranks of Labour. The conflict of opinion was made manifest at the confercncc held in June last, when some very plain speaking was indulged in. A resolution was tarried repudiating the election truce. This was very naturally resented by Labour Ministers, ■as it placed them in an embarrassing position, though Mb. 'Henderson, the mover of the resolution, declared that he did not desire to wreck tho Government. Mk. Barnes, who represents Labour in the War Cabinet, declared emphatically that he was,"for tho war whether in the Government or outoØogf g it. He contend,cd that the resolution would tend to , weaken the national effort because it would dissipate energy which ought to lie directed against the common enemy. Mr. J. R. Clvnes stated that the resolution did not express the feelings of the British workers. He_ asserted that organised Labour in its trade unions did not want to Separate itself from that united body of public sentiment which alone could keep any Government in being, so long as the war lasted. He wanted to know whether organised Labour was prepared to barter Belgium, or whether it was to stand as the friend and defender of small nations. These arc plain and straight questions, but the pacifists evade them. ! They do not, and cannot, tell us how the world is to bo made safe for .democracy unless German militarism is overthrown. They pose as tho special champions of democracy, and yot their policy implies that democracy is not worth fighting for. It is not surprising that a new Labour Party for trade unionists has been brought into existence which will do all, in its power to help the Government to win the war. The great mass of the population of Britain has _ never wavered in its determination to fight on All victory has been won.

The pacifists cannot, ov .will not-, see that it is part of the German -offensive to spread in the Allied countries just that doubtful and pessimistic spirit which their agitation tends to beget and foster. Fortunately they are an insignificant minority, and it is just as well that our allies and our enemies should know that they have no ?laim whatever to speak for the great body of British Labour, and that the general public, treats their whimperings with the utmost contcmpt. The German Government knows perfectly well that the British Empire j has never wavered in its determination to have no other peace than a peace based on victory; but the Kaiser and his advisers would like to make the German people believe that pacifist sentiment is growing in Britain. The true facts are, however, occasionally blurted out in the j German Press. For instance, one writer recently expressed disappointment at the successful manner in which "the Balfours, Cecils, Cukzons, and Barneses" have dealt with the "English softies" who cry peace when there is no peace. Tho makers of public opinion in Germany are quite aware—though it does not suit them to say so—that the success of "the Balfours, ' Cecils. Ourzons, and Barneses" is due to the fact that they have the solid support of a united Empire, while "the softies" only represent a small and uninfluential clique of misguided erratics. The American Labour Mission which recently paid a visit -to Britain had every opportunity of ascertaining tho views of the industrial population. On his return to New York, Mit. J. A. Wilson, the chairman of the mission, remarked that British Labour was working for just one thing —to bring the war to a successful completion as soon as possible. When he uses the word "Labour" he ineags tho actual workers of Great Britain. Of course lie knows that some of "the softies" pose as representatives of Labour. He also knows that some of the leaders of the Labour Party, a purely political organisation, advocate a conference with German workers, but he heard no such opinion voiced by any of tho thousands of workers in the shipbuilding, munition, and other plants with whom he talked. "All of these," he states,_ "approved the j policy of the American Federation of Labour to have no dealings whatever with enemy workers until the end of the war." It is not difficult to imagine what the British Seamen's Union thinks about "the softies" and their mischievous agitation for peace by negotiation with the Prussian bullies.

Thu officials of the Labour Party have for some time been preparing for a general election; but what chance has a disunited party with a defeatist programme of persuading the British public ,to weaken the hands of the Government at a timo like this? Cablegrams which we publish to-day announco that people who should be well informed in such matters predict that a general election will take place in November or December of this year. If this prediction proves correct, and the electors arc given a straighti out choice betweon win-the-war and

defeatist policies, there can be no shadow oi doubt as to which they will choose. The resolute and unflinching war spirit which has pervaded all sections of the community makes it quite safe to predict that a general election would send Mn. Lloyd Geoege back to power with 1 a sweeping majority. The views of Mr. Henderson, Me. 'Snowpen, Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald, and their followers are altogether too illogical and inconsistent to _ carry much weight with the public. Mr. Henderson has declared that it is dangerous to break, a Government in war time without knowing the policy of their successors, and yet he has adopted a, line of action which must tend to hamper Mr. Lloyd George by depriving him of the support of a section .of the workers. There is no sense in such a shuffling policy. It stands out in flat contradiction to the sentiments expressed by Me. Purdy, the chairman of the Labour Party Conference, wjicn he appealed to his hearers not to forget that all their plans for reconstruction, all their hopes of rebuilding a, better social and industrial life, depended on ono cardinal fact—and that is winning the war. He went on to E'ay: "We cannot contemplate, after the great sacrifices which have been made in every part of \.he British Commonwealth and the pouring out of our material resources, any end but one, and that is victorj; to the Allied cause. If wo rema-in true to ourselves, lrue_ to the tenacity of our race, wo will triumph in the end: and tiie victory will be one of right against might, of justice against injustice, of democracy against autocracy." Here wo have the authentic voice of British Labour. Whatever "the softies" may think or sa.y, the workers'of Britain are at one with the rest of the community in the resolve _ that, _ as the result of this war, right, justice, and democracy shall be established in the world on firmer foundations than ever before.