UNITED FRONT IN BRITAIN

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21974, 24 December 1936, Page 8

UNITED FRONT IN BRITAIN

TO THE EDITOH 'OF TUB PRESS. Sir —The "Daily Herald," which you quote to-day, is being pushed to desperate expedients to delay the building of the united working class front n Britain. I use the word 'delay advisedly, for the minority in favour of the united front between the Labour party and the Communist party had grown to fully a quarter of the delegates at the recent Labour party conference at Edinburgh. Soon it will be the majority! When the • "Daily Herald" declares that the partial unity already achieved, comprising the communist party. Independent Labour party, and Socialist League, is directed against the Labour party, it is obviously fighting a losing battle. Only the reactionary leaders of the Labour nartv are not moving leftward; indeed they are travelling to the right, while the rank and file have their faces in the opposite direction. A section of the leadership is characterised bv indecision; but the Citrines and th Daltons have no illusions—their course is set for reaction. In the immediate past the Communist and Independent Labour parties had a partially u..i'.ed front, but the new agreement marks a great advance, and in addition, the Socialist League, led by Sir Stafford Cripps, which has a considerable influence ideologically on the Labour party membership, has come into the concentration. The Communist party is enrolling new members at an accelerating speed, the last report giving 1000 a month, while the Independent Labour party is stationary but commands a real mass following, particularly in Scotland. It is something to have overcome the qualms o£ Mr Maxton, who is on its extreme right. Now the unity drive against the reactionary leaders in the Labour party will have a sharper point and more power behind it. They had better go with the tide, or it will submerge them. Excelled perhaps only by the Irish Labour party, the British Labour party has cut a sorry figure in the defence of democracy in Spain. One does not need to look far for the cause in the case of the former, but surely the British party is looking too far ahead and incorrectly estimates the relation ot class force's when it is so afraid of the possible effect on the Roman Catholic vote in Liverpool, Newcastle, and Glasgow. Must one look there also for the cause of the masterly inactivity of the New Zealand Labour party'.' Underlying the monarchical crisis in Britain, which is not over yet, are deep economic and political causes, in a word, the world crisis, which forces the Jinc-up of class forces even in the last of the democracies. Every act of every British democrat is of extreme importance. John Strachey has said very truly: "The world lists are well matched; the adhesion of Britain on one side or the other would almost certainly prove decisive. Moreover, just as the forces in the world struggle are agonisingly well balanced, so within Britain the forces which tend to bring her down on one side or the other are almost perfectly balanced. A comparatively small force may tip the scale, for or against the fascist camp, in Britain. And Britain in her turn is very likely to tip the international scale." That is why united front concentration against fascism in Britain is invested, with supreme importance.— Yours, etc., C.F.S. December 23. IiTJIi.