The Dominion. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1928. THE INTOLERANCE OF LABOUR-LEADERS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 35, 5 November 1928, Page 10

The Dominion. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1928. THE INTOLERANCE OF LABOUR-LEADERS

A fact which deserves consideration by the everyday worker, as Zealand. While preferring democratic principles it is, in e dictatorial and tyrannical. . . . .. nermitte d Freedom of thought and opinion is the last thing permittea when the Labour-Socialist bosses have made up their minds. The worker who dares to express a contrary opinion is branded a traitor a " di X -A Mrs. W. T. Young, who has entered the field as an Independent Labour candidate for the Wellington Central seat, remarked that members of the Labour Party were not allowed to have opinions of their own: “If” she said [referring to the leaders of the party], "anyonesays B "'? c X“v p s s s srs Zealand.” There was a chorus of “Hear, hear’s’J from the ladies present when this remark was made, and no doubt it is true enoug . „ , , This attitude of repression does not suit the New Zeala worker. He knows that he has very little, say in the shaping of the Labour-Socialist Party’s policy—that this task is a privi e b e strictly preserved for the benefit of a little group of professionals who live on the game. And very resentful this inner circle is of any attempt to encroach on the privileges it has grasped for itself. Looking round at the men who dominate Labour-Socialist policy one cannot fail to be struck by the large percentage of paid officials who have gained the plums of position. Year after year this group secures nomination for public offices, and men outside the charmed circle are passed over or, if their merits are such that they cannot be ignored, are relegated to contest , forlorn hopes. The other day the Labour forces of Rangitikei wanted to have a candidate of their own choosing—a resident of the district, known and trusted by his fellow-workers. But Mr. Holland would not have him. Instead, an outsider chosen by the privileged inner circle was thrust on them. . ’ The reason for this is that the Labour-Socialist leaders want their following tied hand and foot. Also they are intolerant of any opinion but their own. It is the Soviet principle. The great mass of the workers in their, eyes are merely pawns to be used for the aggrandisement of the few. In no section of the community is class privilege more strictly enforced than the self-constituted privileges of the bosses of the Labour-Socialist movement. An example of the arrogant attitude of mind which has resulted from continued office as a “Labour boss’’ is disclosed by a receht utterance of Mr. Peter Fraser, who appears to regard the Wellington Central seat as his own special perquisite. Fie had never pleaded for a vote in his life, he said at one of his meetings, and he never would. Presumably he regards the votes of the electors as his by right. Ordinary candidates may appeal for the votes of the workers, but Mr. Peter Fraser is above such common election courtesies. ■' When one reviews the practices and methods of the LabourSocialist leaders while out of office, it is not difficult to imagine the condition of things which might be expected should they ever secure control of the affairs of the Dominion. The spirit of intolerance already in evidence would be a small thing compared with what could be looked for should the power of government be placed in their hands. It may be thought that this is a remote contingency, but with the United Party candidates splitting the moderate vote at the coming elections it is not one to be lightly passed over. It should be kept steadily in mind by every elector. A Labour-Socialist dictatorship would be just as harmful to the workers as to the farmers and all other electors. And the danger of the LabourSocialist Party getting control lies in the United Party votesplitting. ’ ,