BRITISH “LABOR”

Hokitika Guardian, 14 September 1929, Page 2

BRITISH “LABOR”

(By “X.”) I have always contended that there is no such; 1 thing as a political “Labour” party—that politically labour is unrepresentable '-It may be said that-this contention has been entirely exploded' „by the fact that there is now. a Labour Government in Great •Britain and not only so, but this Government has, under Ramsay MacDonald, so far shown itself to be thoroughly responsibleYand capable. It has so far developed none of • those idiosyncracies characteristic of tin labour extremists. It has not fallen on the neck of Russia and greeted the .Soviet as a long lost brother, ft has not commuted the sentences o' those convicted of lawlessness becausr they were strike leaders. It has nof allowed the arch conspirator, Trotsky.

to enter the country, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown

that no leaning toward internationalism was to bo allowed to. interfere with his insistingyOn .the rifehts ol

the British Empire to fair treatment in the matter of reparations. There

has been no repudiation or confiscation. Altogether the conduct so far has been so: reassuring as to warrani the belief that under Ramsay MacDonald’s Government—whatever il -may. jaaJl 'itself— I the British Constitution is safe, and that it will n-">i be necessary to fall back on the always •unsatisfactory ConservativeLiberal coalition to save the country from disaster.

Of course it is rather soou to speak yet with confidence. While the Government retains the misleading name of ‘labour” it retain -within itselthe elements of disintegration. If it were .possible to visualise a true “Labour” (party such party would represent organised labour, the who! of organised labour, and nothing bu' organised labour. Even then it woulc not be a. labour party, but only ni '’organised labour” 1 party, the product and Representative of labour or ganisations only. «• r

The British Government is far removed from this. Even in the Ca-bi. net all classes are represented, classes whose social and econoipic stand points arts widelydissimilar. This i: a source of strength in so far as iJ makes the Government representative of the country, arid of the Britisl people, and a source of weakness because sooner or later a split, mus" develop with the labour which look on the Government nov as their own government, and the executive whose duty it is to carry out their bequests. Perhaps no British Prime Minister ever had a more difficult task before him than that wliich Ramsay MacfDonald at present. Every step he will 1/ watched critically by those who hav< only too good reason to distrust any thing approaching a dictatorship bj labour unions. It is only a few years since, when the great war was at itheight and England had her back tc the walls that a coal strike was dc rlnred in South Wales and receiver’ the open sympathy of labour agitn tors though -coal was then the blood of the nation. /If other indus : tries had follewed suit the whole Emoire would have been brought intr slavery and disgrace and Philip Snowden wouldn’t have had, the opportunity to distinguish himself in the mat ter of reparations It has been - declared that/the greatest danger overshadowing ;Britain.-was the powei wielded by the ’labour unions. Therefore naturally a Government whicl ostensibly represent organised labour, or labour unions, must be ‘ ‘suspect’ until such time as it lias clearly proved it has no ; leanings towards in fernatiobalism, socialism, communism, or the other ’isms which lead t< disorder, disruptiq(n and ultimate de struction as shown in the case of Russia.

Fqually of course the Government will ibe watched closely .by those whc expect immediate realisation of the grotesque millenium in which capi talism shall cease to exist and the manual labour operative shall be at the apex and not the foundation of the industrial and social pyramid. It is interesting to consider therefore what the labour party’s financial policy in Great Britain is to be and according to the Chancellor o' the' Exchequer its financial policy it much more orthodox than might hav< been expected. In fact it does no" appear to coffer in any material extent from ..Jig' • taxation proposals othe Liberal'lpovernment in New Zealand or in fact the taxation impose 1 bv the CoSmibn, and subsequently the Conservative Governments o' Great Britain. Under these lattei governments the income tax htfd beer' increased from od to Is in the £, tin super tax had been introduced and death duties considerably increased. To meet war costs, later the irlcome tax was raised, by 500 per cent and the super tax for surtax) limit was lowered from £SOOO to £2OOO, while death duties were increased to a maximum of 40 per cejit. “Labour ’ was not responsible for this enormous taxation which enabled the British Government to carry on the war, assist its less financial allies, and maintain its credit. It was accepted more or less philosophically by the nation as a war time necessity. As the years went by, however, and -the burden still remained i£ brought about social changes which in some respects were deplorable. The great middle class which was looked on as the backbone of the country was to all intents and purposes ruined. England can never be again as it was in pre-war times. The nation’s integrity and credit has been maintained but in other respects conditions have changed and are changing. It has boon

demonstrated however that the nation can stand up to an enormous buiden of taxation when the necessity arises and .it is not surprising therefore to find the Labour Government is determined this burden shall continue to be carried while poverty and distress are rampant, and private industry fails to cope with unemployment'. The contention is that if revenue coujd be raised for war purposes it can and must continue to be raised for social service. .

There is no suggestion however of a capital levy, the seizure of private property,' the compulsory taking over of factories, the issue of valueless paper currency or the other mad schemes of the Communist and Bolshevik. Philip Snowden is apparently content to follow the principles of taxation as accepted more or less by all political parties. (1) That a per■;on should be called on to contribute to the nation’s needs in accordance with his financial ability; (2) that accumulated capital and the income lerived' from it has a greater capacity to pay than a precarious income rrom an occupation. This of course means, simply a graduated income tax with differentiation as between earned and unearned income. Then taxation of luxuries/is forecast with freedom from taxation so far as foodstuffs and the necessities of life are joncemed. Death duties are likely •o be very largely increased not only is a means of raising revenue but to minimise the perpetuation of the social inequality of extreme wealth and poverty. The drastic, treatment of the question of inheritance is forecast as a main plank in the financial •policy, The other main issue will itnloubtedly be the absorption more cr less of the future unearned increment of land,

There is nothing new in these prolosals. They are quite in accord with advanced Liberalism as introduced in New Zealand by Ballance and Seddon, and as advocated by British Liberal- and Radical statesmen years before what is known as “Labour” was ever dreamed of as a political classification. “Labour” is, if judged by .he standard of such policy as has bpen put. forward so far by its responsible leaders simply advanced, or adioal Liberalism.

But the crucial test is yet to come, ft-may be quite true* that, as Philip llnowden ' says, the present British iovernment is as much or more couerned about trade and national pros-lej-ity as any other party or class, -.nowden himself knows, and has admitted that stability of trade, reguar employment and a fair working vnge is dependent on price fixing—i • problem presenting almost insuperable difficulties.

But the irresponsible trades union and other elements which were largely responsible for the return of a •‘Labour” government have never ■hown the slightest inclination or ability to cope with, or even seriousy consider this problem. More wages for less work, and a guarantee that he State will /provide work at full union lutes for those whom industry ■aimot absorb, or the private emplover rejects ae lazy o? incompetent; ••.hose are ' the demands which those who represent labour politically are fneod with. That "these demands can be met without practically destroying the trade of the country is question'd by leading economists. Probably bore will be a resort to arbitration is in the case of the gotten industry trouble, but the results of tlie elaborate system of conciliation and arbitration as adopted in the Dominions are not reassuring. As unionism is tased on the principle of cercion of the non-unionist, and as such coer■ion leads inevitably to lawlessness and crime, as just demonstrated in Australia, the real test of the labour government will be the manner in which it protects the people from such lawlessness and intimidation. In all probability the Ramsay MacDonald .government will, if faced with such crisis rise to the occasion and show itself worthy of the responsibility vested in it. Its record, so far lias been admirable and warrants this confidence. But it is certain that in such case the leaders will be accused of -being traitors to the labour cause —all other outstanding leaders have had to meet this charge—and the Government will, sooner or later, cease to be a “Labour” government.