LABOUR AND THE ELECTIONS

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 48, 20 November 1928, Page 13

LABOUR AND THE ELECTIONS

Sir,—I have been a keen follower of the city electioneering campaign this, year, and it is with deep feelings of concern that I view the actions of the Labour section. At the outset I would like it understood that I am in the midst of this section, being a working man. and by trade an engineer, but while I appreciate and feel intensely the difficulties of the working man, I do, at the same time, abhor all those actions of the Labour Party and people which tend to further intensify those difficulties, and to widen still further the breach between employers and employees. It has been evident that the rowdy section of the working men has deliberately set itself out to howl down all those opposed to their views. Extreme instances may be quoted, such as Mrs. Young’s first two meetings, and the Prime Minister’s attempted speech after the election. The hooliganism and utter ignorance displayed on those occasions was deplorable. In Mrs. Young’s instance, not only was she subjected to the most uncouth and unnecessary heckling, but also to unwarranted personal attacks. In the Prime Minister’s case, it was exceedingly aggravating to stand by and see him howled down and repeatedly counted out. The abusive remarks which swept through the crowd, and the jeers and sneers, which culminated in hoots and yells, every time Mr. Coates attempted to speak, cannot but make serious-minded people sympathise with the man in a public position. The same treatment greeted Sir John Luke and the Hon. Mr. Wright. No man has worked harder in this city than Sir John Luke, and for him to be treated and taunted as he was still further strengthens the case I have against my own fellow-workers. . . The point I wish to bring out is this. “How can the Labour Party be expected to govern this country successfully as thev sometime hope to do—if they represent a people of which 75 per cent, cannot conduct themselves with any show of decency under a capitalistic restraint, let alone under their own leaders as a .Government, when that self-same restraint is relaxed? No, if ever the Labour Party conies into power this country will be ruined, both financially and democratically, for the workers will instantly demand every redress in equal hurry, and if it is not granted, they will simply twist their leaders about, and, moreover, feeling the weight of capitalistic forces lifted from them, will literally turn the country upside down. The opposing forces of to-day to use the old names, Whigs and Tones— really act as a gigantic safety valve; and I contend that it is far better for those parties to pass laws (which affect the working man) by slow and evolutionary methods. under pressure of the Labour 1 arty in a minority, than ever it would be to have a Labour Party actually in power, passing laws in one jumble to affect one section of the community only. The Labour Party and unions have done a great deal to make our lot easier, but I am emphatically opposed to that party ever occupying the Treasury benches, so long as they represent a people who see no other, viewpoint than their own and don t wish to, and who will by their actions, even if they do not intend it, dangerously upset the order of society, which experience has repeatedly taught us must remain. At the same time they are tainted with red propaganda, having with them also really one ultimate aim: the confiscation of capital and the crushing oi capitalists P No man can fully understand the feeling of the workers, unless he has been actually in the working and labouring clashes. The feeling is not without just cause. As a worker he feels he is continually squeezed, forced, and pushed under. He has little or no contact or personal encouragement from his employer; while he is surrounded by merciless foremen whose one object seems to be to drive and drive. As a result the worker slips from his eager apprenticeship days to a rut of discouragement, where he is determined to do the least amount of work for the award wage. He says he won’t ’“bust” himself for any man, for who will thank him if he does ? If he does show any desire to work harder he cannot see any direct opening as a reward for his labour; besides, he is continually faced with the fact that as hard as he may work he still, gets the same wage, as if he took his time. All this leads to a subsequent contempt and distrust for the moneyed man, but be that as it may, I stress, the onus rests more on the working man himself, for the correction of his grievances, than it does with his employer. Labour can never hope to gain the genuine sympathy ot the employers as long as they (the workers) give them reason to think their own position is in danger and as long as they continually show they cannot act like respectable citizens. All outbursts of uncontrolled disapproval and lurking suspicion, directly further these ends, and undo the good work done by the few workers who are silently endeavouring to elevate and drag the working man from the environment into which he is slowly sinking. Labour leaders and workers are continually crying out about the curtailment of their right of speech, and at the same time their cries are directed at the Press. Do the workers fully realise that freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights and privileges of the British people, and do they realise it is one of our most valued inheritances? No, they do not. They ask for freedom of speech in one breath and directly refuse its use to others in the next breath. Mrs. Young and other candidates were refused any pretence of free speech. If men and women cannot respect this simple and portentous privilege, upon which the might of our constitution stands, then longer still should Labour be excluded from office. Certainly the leaders made a strong appeal to their followers to give candidates a fair hearing, but only a little time before the election. The appeal has grown into a mockery to those who. made it, for within a week of ’its making it was entirely disregarded and violated when the Prime Minister rose to speak. On Tuesday last at the Labour rally, Mr. Semple referred to Mrs. Young as a “poor, misguided, and weak woman. If this is so. then less excuse is there to offer for that crowd who took advantage of such a woman, to voice their ignorant ami bitter opinions. If it is not out of place I would like to take the opportunity to ask Mr. Semple if he can prove, through the medium of this paper, his assertion that the ‘ Reform Partv got this ‘poor, misguided, and weak woman’ to do their ‘dirty’ work?”

It is not a wholesale controversy -that I want, but a clean-cut statement in support of his assertion. It is in the interests of all that he should be prepared to back his statements up. It is not sufficient to state that the whole affair is quite evident —that is not proof. The trouble is the Labour Party hate to hear the truth, and many of Mrs. Young’s statements cut to the core, as I knowthrough my association with other workmen. On the rally night Mr. Semple also described the capitalists as a “grasping, crushing, hungry mob.” This may be so, and I realise it, but it is not the words Mr. Semple used that I complain about, but the bitter way in which he said them, which left no manner of doubt as to where he would like to have the moneyed man if he had his way. Mr. Semple’s talk appeals most strongly to the working man, but I say again it is aggravating the entire position. The most regretful incident of all, however, was the hostility and bitterness shown to the Prime Minister when he attempted to deliver his after-election speech. lam not inferring that that gentleman was right in his administration; no doubt he has made mistakes and, moreover, practised rigid economy, but as one of our own statesmen said in Fox’s time, “There is nothing which makes a Government so unpopular as a careful economy.” But however tall the mountain of grievances may have grown, there was one time and one time ' only when the crowd was at liberty, to express its anger, and on this occasion it was when the Prime Minister had concluded bis speech. It may be opportune to remind that same crowd that the liberty we enjoy is the right to do as we please as long as we do not infringe the other man’s right to do as he pleases. Events have since proved, however, that what Mr. Coates did say constitutes one of the finest and most gentlemanly speeches ever heard after an election in this country. In spite of all, it has turned out to be the Prime Minister’s personal triumph, and all those senseless acts of the Labour section during this election will recoil, as is always the case, hardest on those who play them. As a community the Labour men are waging an increasing class warfare, but it is to be honed the Labour leaders will in future look more to giving the men a brighter outlook, higher and more elevating ideals, instilling the viewpoints of sane, educated and intelligent men, and, above all, offering a greater co-operation with any Government which promotes industrial conferences. such ns the present one did. “The future.” said Mr. Coates, “is in the hands of the people.” So whatever the future may hold during the evolution of this Imperial Dominion I trust it will always be in the interests of the community ns a whole, and that which will still further warrant our name of being “the political laboratory of the world.” —I am. etc.. “A YOUNG NEW ZEALANDER.” Wellington, November