The Labor Party and Mr. McHugh

Maoriland Worker, Volume 3, Issue 87, 15 November 1912, Page 4

The Labor Party and Mr. McHugh

In S'atunhiy'.s "N.Z. Times" Labor Page (conducted by Walter Thomas Mills) appear a number of notes and comments on The Wohkeh, concluding with the following :—

"Complaint has been made that McHugh, who has been speaking under the auspices of the United Labor Party, is a member of the Liberal Party of Great Britain, and that ho has no right on the platform of tho United Labor Party of New Zealand. It would be interesting to know on what platform a man who had been fighting for the policies of Lloyd George in Gror.t Britain could be standing on in New Zealand if not on the. platform of the United Labor Party.''

The charge made, by this paper was that Mr. Edward McHugh was not a famous and noted Labor leader, as repeatedly- stated by the United Labor Party in its attempt to boom Mr. McHugh's tour of New Zealand under its auspices.

In order to secure working-class acceptance of Mr. McHugh, and to gain the ear of the workers for Mr. McHugh's Single Tax nostrum, the United Labor Party gave him a credential to which he was not entitled, and was thus guilty of a subterfuge the implications of which amount to cheating.

In pointing out that Mr. McHugh was merely a Lloyd George champion, this paper was satisfied with indicating that such a champion could not be a bona fide Labor leader, meaning by that a prominent representative of the Labor move-a cut as expressed in the unionism and Socialism identified through organised activity with the work of securing a place for Labor and Socialist champions and principles in Parliaments and industries.

The Labor movement of Great Britain, for instance, is entirely apart from the Liberal organisations and finds its collective voice in congresses and certain well-known organisations. Among tho latter are the Independent Labor Party and British Socialist Party. These and other organisations of a similar character all avow Socialism as their aim. Our information is that Mr. McHugh is not a member of any such organisation, nor in any way attached to the Labor Representation Committee which "runs" Labor candidates. These candidates do not take the field as Single Taxors nor as followers of Lloyd George. Lloyd George is a Liberal. The policies of Lloyd George arc Liberal ones. The Labor Party is opposed by Lloyd George and by Lloyd George's followers. A big fight now on in Great Britain is the fight for independent representation in the House of Commons of Labor principles as distinct from Liberal principles. In this fight the Liberal and the Labor candidates are opponents. Lloyd George is for the Liberal candidates. Lloyd George is not a Labor man. The Labor candidates are fighting for their life for the right to run as Labor candidates. The Liberal Party is fighting them. Mr. McHugh, we are informed, has fought for the Liberal candidates who have opposed Labor candidates. He has fought against the chosen candidates of Labor. He is not a Labor man. Mr. McHugh recently has been in Australia for 12 months or so, but in Australia ho was not regarded as either '•famous" or "Labor leader." He did not speak under Labor auspices, nor did he figure as Labor apologist. He had no connection with the Labor movement. In Australia the notion of Mr. MoHugh as Labor adherent and mouthpiece would have been laughed at as preposterous. But the X.Z. United Labor Party enthusiastically takes up Mr. McHugh —and our contention is that this is one of many evidences proving that the U.L.P. is not a genuine Labor body, hut a Liberal Party aspiring to be but a Lloyd George social-reform paternalist pateher-up of social ills. If it at 11-,..I 1 -,.. s ..;vn t :, --"> endeavors to be all things to all men that is simply the outcome of its craving tn attain political power by a procos.l of short cuts. .

However, we submit it is proven that the United Labor Party was ready to foist upon the people of New Zealand a man who isn't what it stated, and that the U.L.P. did so to win attention to views it seeks to popularise as Labor gospel, but which are essentially Liberalistic and anti-Socialist.

The trick is an old one, but the trickster is seldom respected.

In reply to the second sentence of our extract, we also believe it would be interesting to know on what platform a man who had been fighting for the policies of Lloyd George in Great Britain could bo standing on in New Zealand if not on tho platform of the United Labor Party.

Certainly he could not stand on the platform of the Socialist Party. He is not a Socialist. Lloyd George is an anti-Socialist. His Budget and his policies and his following are Liberal.

That is chiefly what we. wish understood. If the Labor Page and The Maortlaxd Worker are alike in this wish, we express regret for having appeared to complain of Mr. McHugh's presence in the Labor Party and on its platform.

The platform is all right, only it is a Liberal platform. The name is all wrong. "United Labor Party" is a swindle. It is not united. Uis not Labor.

Furthermore, the Labor Party claims to be a Socialist Party, and resents tho charge that it is a Lib.-Lab. party. By its endorsement of Mr. McHugh it shows itself not even a Labor party (as such a party is everywhere estimated), and also clearly demonstrates its non-acquaintance with the fundamental antagonism of Single Tax and Socialism. Jf the Labor Party were a Socialist Party it would be a party of Socialists. It is not such. It is a Liberal Party in stolen clothes. But is if. quite the honest thing to masquerade as a- working-class party?