WHERE IS BRITISH LABOUR GOING?

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 3621, 2 April 1927, Page 4

WHERE IS BRITISH LABOUR GOING?

A POWER IN CONFLICT WITH

ITSELF.

There c-an be no question but that the Labour Party in Britain a considerable power within the Nation. If it goes wrong then a great number of British people will also go wrong. The most grave aspect in respect to political Labour at Home is that none seem to know just where it is going—whether it is towards Moscow or away from it. “The debate in the House of Commons on the Labour Amendment demanding the withdrawal of the British troops from China threw a lurid light on the divisions and antagonisms in the Labour Party. The decision to move the Amendment was reached by only a small majority, at a Party meeting, and when the debate was proceeding, an attempt was made by the moderate section to avoid a division. They were overruled, however, by the extremists, with some fantastic results. “Mr. MacDonald once more was forced into a position against which all his better instincts must have rebelled. He had before been giving his support to the policy of Sir Austen Chamberlain: — “Nothing could justify our authorities, he had said, if they simply walk away from settlement which past Chinese Governments have allowed us to control, and where our people have taken up their abode under the security which they believed those treaties gave them. We must have an agreement and during its negotation ordinary precautions for safety must be taken. What is . any Government tb do under those circumstances? We may frame resolutions, but the man who has to carry them out has a job of a different kind, and wc ought to try to put ourselves in his tight shoes.”

“Yet, in spite of these fine sentiments, Mr. MacDonald demanded the abandonment of these ordinary precautions for safety, and went, -into the lobby with the Loslcys, the Lansburys, and the other supporters of the policy of surrender and scuttle.

“Nor was he alone in this extraordinary capitulation to the clamour of his Communist-inspired comrades. Mr. Thomas who had throughout taken a patriotic line, was declaring at Derby, when his colleagues were taking ?a_ different line at Westminster, that it is the clear duty of any Government to protect its nationals. Yet Mr. Thomas was paired in favour of his party amendment.” A YES-NO ATTITUDE.

“Just as surprising was the action of Mr. Snowden, who supported the amendment for the withdrawal of the troops, but who in the country had said: —

So far the policy of the British Foreign'Office is the right one, this country is not willing to leave British subjects in China without protection. It is the duty of any Government to take steps that are necessary to protect the lives of its subjects.” Then, we have the speech of Mr. Dnnnico, an unexpected defence of the Government’s policy, in which he said: — “Sir Austen Chamberlain merits the full support and not the criticism of British people." And vet he voted for the amendment seemingly against his own convictions. DANGER OF IRRESPONSIBILITY “What can he said of a party that betrays such a spirit of reckless irresponsibility? The veal moral to he drawn from it is that the extremists have once driven their leaders along a road they did not wish to take. As in the case of the Russian Treaty, the Campbell prosecution, and the General Strike, the leaders have proved themselves weak and vacillating in a crisis, men without any of the qualities of leadership, men of no purpose or decision, just mere straws blown about by the wind. “What, asked Mr. Oswald Mosley, in the course of the debate, can we expect from a Government which embraces such variety of character and such diversity of temperaments? “But what can we expect from an opposition which embraces such a variety of conilieting opinions, whose members say one thing today and another to-morrow, contradict in the House what they say outside the House, and vote against their own publicly expressed convictions? (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League).