The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 1955. Labour in Britain And Australia

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27638, 20 April 1955, Page 12

The Press WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 1955. Labour in Britain And Australia

Although different in their origins, the cleavages in the ranks of the British and Australian Labour parties raise grave doubts about the future of the political Labour movement in both countries. In Britain the split between the “ conservative ” side of the party and the rebel faction led by the irrepressible Mr Aneurin Bevan has been patched up superficially; but j no-one doubts that the conflict of

views remains. In Australia the struggle between the official party organisation headed, rather uneasily, by Dr. H. V. Evatt, and the industrial groups known as “ The “ Movement ” is still intense, open, and bitter; it will not be ended by Dr. Evatt’s re-election to the party leadership. But both in Britain and Australia there are unmistakI able signs that the once almost unshakable unity of Labour as a political movement is gone—perhaps for ever.

The conflict in each case is not so much between socialism and capitalism (although socialism in the form in which Labour leaders of 20 years ago envisaged it is demonstrably unpopular with the voters) as between the industrial and political groups of the party. Labour rose to power on the influence and cohesion of trade unionists, who turned to politics as a weapon which might gain them what they could not achieve by union negotiations with the employers. When the Parliamentary Labour Party is in opposition the combination works, or used to work, moderately smoothly. But once a Labour gov-emme-t is elected, clashes between industry] and political Labour become unavoidable. In the modern world a government is a huge employer of labour; and, like any other employer, it must, in the nature of things, bargain with unions which, also in the nature of things, must always seek higher pay and better conditions. In the Labour movement this finally results in a clash between the Parliamentary party and what might be called by Americans the “grass roots" source of its strength—the individual branches of scores of unions. The extent of the clash is often minimised because the leaders of industrial labour on a national scale fortunately tend to develop' a

“ conservatism ” of their own, which restrains the rank and file of unionists from excessive demands. The unions, or at least the more responsible unions, can exercise this restraint through a form of national discipline; but there in no discipline at the ballot-box, and rank and file unionists, sometimes with a sense of grievance against their national industrial leaders, seek an outlet for their demands by supporting the rebels on Labour’s political side. Though Mr Aneurin Bevan in Britain may be defeated at the party’s annual conference on a disciplined vote of delegates, no-one knows better than Mr Attlee that his very defeat there may enlist for him heavy support among the rank and file of Labour voters. In Australia, it has been a clash within the ranks of industrial labpur that has spread so disastrously to the political movement. On the one hand are the groups that are working against Communist influence in the unions; on the other, the leftwing unionists and those who can be influenced in other ways. Capitalism years -ago conceded to Labour many of the benefits for which the first Labour politicians fought so strongly. Now that the original gains have been consolidated, Labour in both Australia and Britain seems to lack aims and a cogent political philosophy. Without a clear sense of direction, the political influence' of the two formerly powerful parties seems

bound to diminish. Already, the split in Australia has, it is generally acknowledged, greatly enhanced the prospects of the Menzies Government in a General Election. In Britain, the knowledge that Labour is a house divided may well have been decisive in the many factor? that the Conservatives would have to take into account in fixing the election date.