POLITICAL LABOUR

Hokitika Guardian, 30 November 1931, Page 3

POLITICAL LABOUR

By X. / It was pointed out years ago that .labour, as labour was politically unrepresentable, as woikers were free men, many of them capitalists, and holding diverse views on politics, and diversified outlook on life and its problems. The majority of workers- —whether by brain or hand —are .quite responsible citizens and capable of holding their own political views. The attempt to fasten “class consciousness” is really an insult to the intelligence of the worker. To tell a man who is, perhaps, a, waterside worker that lie must always remember that he is a waterside worker, and only a waterside worker, and that, as a voter he must support a political party which would represent the interests*, or what they considered the interests of waterside workers, and waterside workers only would be strongly resented. But substitute the word “labour” and the bait will be swallowed, but only by those who fail to think for themselves. “Labour” has a clear industrial significance but it is only in recent years that an attempt lias been, made to give the word a political significance and the result lias been hopeless confusion and worse. It is owing to the vast range covered by labour that a political Labour Party is, as Sir Philip Gibbs says an “impossible abstraction —like the United States of Europe.” The interests of one section may be widely different to those of another. Some workers are wage earners, with wages ranging from a. few pounds a week to several thousands a year, according to earning power. Some are paid partly or wholly by results. The farmer who knows he cannot possibly receive more than his land wifi produce less the cost of production is a “worker”—-no one will question that—but lie lias an entirely different outlook (as a farmer) to the artisian who looks to the “employer” for the maximum wage lie can demand, or the Union and the Arbitration Court to fix his “minimum.” The professional man has a different outlook to the business man, the business man to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer to his typist, his clerk, or his employees. Yet all are workers and their interests are so far identical that they all depend on the development and prosperity of industry. I am repeating to a certain extent what I wrote some years ago, but 1 wish to remind your readers of it, « the gigantic bluff of “political labour” has just been called. Then I last wrote “Labour” had just been returned in Great Britain, and under the leadership of those who were admittedly very able men, itamsay MacDonald, Snowden and-Thomas. Able as these men were 1 pointed out that their politicalviews were distorted in some respects and they would find themselves later ou in an impossible position when the interests of their country and the people of the country as a whole clashed with sectional and irresponsible interests the demands of which if met would mean national bankruptcy- arm disaster. Quoting from my article: “In all probability the Itamsay MacDonald Government will if faced with such crisis rise to the occasion and show itself worthy of the responsibility vested in it. But it is certain that in such case the leaders will be accused of being traitors to the labour cause—all outstanding leaders have had to meet this charge—and the Government will,-sooner or later cease to be a Labour Government.”

It was quite easy to make this forecast which lias come absolutely true. It was only necessary to bear in mind that politically “Labour” was an “impossible abstraction” and that there-’ fore its policy, plausible as it might sound from the platform or the soapbox could never stand the test of actual practice, and the party must, if responsibility were placed on it, break up into its component elements. The result lias been that in Great Britain “Labour” as a political party has absolutely ceased to exist. Ramsay MacDonald is now the leader of one of the strongest National Governments that (treat Britain ever find. He states that he is as much a labour man as ever he was, but be lias found that the interests of the nation and the people must be paramount and therefore lii.s split with political labour was final. Philip Snowden’s expose of the Labour, Party and its policy, tactics, and irresponsibility should, and 710 doubt will be sufficient to prevent even the nucleus of such party being reformed in Great Britain. The official opposition there which is so small as to be negligible is now known as the “Socialist-Party.” As T am writing these notes the news has just come through that the “Labour” Government in the Australian Commonwealth has been defeated. This was bound to come sooner or later. Air Scullin has. it is true, proved himself in some respects an admirable leader, and has certainly earned the gratitude of all well wishers of Australia by the prompt action he took to prevent New South Wales making default and thereby bringing irretrievable ruin on the Commonwealth. AVhen he was in England his firmness in asserting that Australia would meet its obligations and balance its budget probably went far towards reassuring investors. But on his return from London he exchanged the firm attitude he had maintained there for a disappointing acceptance of th© dictates of the Labour caucus. He had no really stable political party behind him. Though he was able to curb to some extent the madness of “Lnngism,” the insurgent section of his own party together with the official Opposition has evidently been sufficient to bring about ! a defeat which from present indications j must' mean a disolution. Tf this is so the people of Australia will almost certainly follow the lead of Great Britain

and re-establish the prestage credit and prosperity of the country hv wiping out the Socialist Communist combination which has so lone masqueraded as political "labour,” and which has brought that country to the verge of ruin and disgrace.