A LABOUR REVIEW.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 137, 13 June 1927, Page 12

A LABOUR REVIEW.

TREND OF THE PARTY. IS LIBERALISM BEING COURTED? THE "USEHOLD" POLICY. (By X.L.M.C.) The present New Zealand Labour party, as do all other working class parties, traces its inception to the industrial trades unions. Previous to an independent party being formed, Labour was the allied left wing of the Liberal party, and many progressive political measures were placed on the statute book by this amalgamated party. But some 20 years ago discontent was expressed by the advance guard radicals of the trade union movement, the assertion being made that Labour was not receiving its full share of political plums, and expression was sought through the district trades and labour councils in forwarding remits to their annual conference to the effect that a distinct party be brought into being. Thus the seeds of discontent with the Liberal party were sown, but it took many years before they matured into reality. The die-hard Liberal-Labourite fought tenaciously to remain amalgamated, but the extreme Socialist, who also claimed membership in the small but virile Socialist Political party was strenuously showing by effective propaganda that the only way of obtaining political salvation was the formation of a separate party. These advocates of the gentry of the Socialist party even gained admittance in some instances to the Trade* and Labour Council's annual congresses, and after much marshalling of economic facts eventually convinced a majority that a distinct party was the right course. Having thus established the party, the Socialists, always the most active organisation, took a hand in drafting the political platform. Further, having achieved their purpose in getting Labour to divorce Liberalism, they next attempted to have the objective of the party the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. What a rumpus was created with the party in fledging when this communistic objective was moved for the party's goal. The members of the Socialist party were classed as political devils, their own fellow staid unionists denounced them as engines of destruction, and an attempt was made to ostracise these red economic thinkers from seats of office. But time has shown that, like all political evolution, the die-hards were attempting the impossible, the Socialists were the economic thinkers, they congregated in the highways and byways, delivering their version of how to change the present system of society. Amalgamation Mooted.

The leaders of the slowly developing Labour party were then, as now, comprised of trade union permanently paid secretaries, and they were asute enough to see that whilst they refused to accept the Socialist thinker into their ranks he was showing by public meetings that the Labour party was not open to all, therefore an amalgamation of the two parties was mooted, and eventually given effect to.. Thus the red reds not only joined in unity with the pinky pinks, they actually allowed the latter to absorb them holus-bolus. From that date onwards the party have made a distinct progressive move, thanks chiefly to the militant work of the absorbed reds. The Liberal party's policy was centred upon as good political fodder to tickle the ears of the electors, they were trenchantly accused, of lulling the workers to sleep by enacting' the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Liberal leasehold land policy was also attacked, and generally speaking the Liberal party was made the butt of the Labour party sharp shooters in every political fight. Even Royalty came in for its share of condemnation, it was accused of being the instrument that retained the system that kept the workers suppressed. On one occasion, a now noted Labour leader, craracterised the Governor of the Dominion aa a "gilded popinjay." In effect the party was out for a complete change of society.

Even its brothers in arms across in Australia were accused of being reactionary, and militarism was anathema to the then small struggling party out to capture the political machine of New Zealand. The progress of the party is sufficiently well known and does not require repetition, bnt a review of its actions of to-day, compared with the time it was being wrought into being, is certainly interesting, if somewhat unpalatable to many of the present day leaders. The party is now the official opposition, and the plums of such a dignified office are clearly apparent in the doing of the party of to-day.- Has any attempt ever been made to erase the once much abused Conciliation and Arbitration Act from the Statute Book t The early utterances of condemnation of this measure were apparently only political bluff, for this enactment is the avenue where the party now receives its bullion for political fighting purposes. The Arbitration Court is an appendage of the Act, it grants preference to unionists, and this "stump up or get off the job" preference is the milch cow of Labour. It must, upon political reflection, be retained at all hazards. So think the Labour party. TJsehold Jettisoned. The Easter conference of Labour at Napier jettisoned the much vaunted "usehold" land policy, and as near a? other words could be arranged in phraseology, the one-time much abused Liberal leasehold policy was substituted. Why the great change over? Even last election the Liberal party's land policy was attacked, the Labour party's "usehold" policy was the correct one, so the party stated, for the political minnennium; yet now an admittance is made that the Labour party told untruths to the electors. What is the position of electors who voted for the party believing that the "usehold" policy was the best offering? And why was the land policy changed? Was it discarded because it was unpalatable to certain Labour members of Parliament? One is prompted to ask this because, when questioned at a public meeting in the King Country recently on the land question, a certain Labour MJ>. frankly stated that the Easter congress would alter the land policy. Close observations reveal the fact that the fighting industrialist of the present Labour party is being outwitted by the politician. In other words, the member of Parliament is denning the policy best suited, in his opinion, to securing additional votes. A political shuttlecock has been created, to oe changed at short notice from nauseous to popular opinion. And to cap all, the much #*M«d liberal party*- land policy fcae

been confiscated. Just how the militant industrialist views the question will be shown in the future developments ol the party, for he is the one that has in the past supplied the ever necessary coin of the realm. He will have to decide who is to make the Labour party's policy, similar to what is now occurring in Australia. The recent affinity to Royalty is another change-over of one-time much vaunted principle, particularly when one recalls that Mr. Peter Fraser, Labour MJ*. for Wellington Central, then a city councillor of Wellington, declined to attach his signature to a civic welcome to the Prince of Wales. Th". party endorsed Mr. Fraser's action then, yet now its leaders gloat over the fact that they dine, shake hands and hob nob with the Prince's brother, the Duke of York. The fruits of opposition office have apparently removed all objection to Royalty. But is the late flourish sincere, or were the electors' votes at the municipal elections being angled tor? It must be indeed galling to Mr. Peter Fraser and those of the party who entertain similar sentiments, to observe this gushing over Royalty. Such a change of front as outlined will have the effect of a creation of a new wing, who will be stickers for principle before catch-vote policy. At present the Communist party are debarred official admittance to the Labour party, yet they are doing the advance work, one-time performed by the old Socialist party. They are the critics of reaction, and the policy change of the present-day Labour party will only tend to assist the Communist party in its recruiting campaign. Insincerity loses adherents quickly, and sincerity is now a departed vision of the present political Labour party. Its actions verify such. It is paving the Way for a new distinct progressive party who will stand for principles, and not pander solely for votes. My, how the Liberal party much chuckle to observe its one-time lost twin brother gradually dwindling back to the old political fold. What's in a name—even if one is spelt Labour and the other Liberal? Consistency is surely the refuge of fools, politically speaking, and Labour politics, no matter how the political icing is affixed on the political cake, can only fool the people up till the inside is exposed. This stage has now been reached. Future history will indeed be interesting.