Evening Post. TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1909. LABOUR'S AIMS.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVIII, Issue 11, 13 July 1909, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1909. LABOUR'S AIMS.

The problem of the future of the Lav bour party in New Zealand has entered a new and interesting phase during the last few days. Very unwisely, as it seems to us, the party has recently repudiated the Liberal and Labour compact which gave it a series of legislative triumphs far in advance of anything that Labour has been able to achieve elsewhere, or could possibly have achieved here by any other means. Labour now professes to be asJiamed of its alliance with Liberalism, and aspires to a power which will tolerate no rival near its throne, and will put Liberalism no- less than Conservatism under its feet. We have always believed that these tactics must involve the sacrifice of the substance of power for the shadow. Supreme power Labour, of course, could not expect to enjoy while it threw in its lot with the forces of Liberalism, but it had . secured in this way a very large measure of power — a mea-' .sure which was really far more effectivo for the furtherance of its own ends than the drastic changes which »\-ould have resulted from undivided control, and have provoked the inevitable reaction. Gradually, and with surprisingly little friction, measures were placed upon the statute-book by a Liberal Government inspired and supported by Labour, though Labour alone would not have had as good a chance of carrying a single point of its programme, as the Fisher Government recently had in Australia. Nevertheless, the New Zealand Labour party determined to break nway and r.f>°k its own fortune inaepeadfinlly, liUs

the Labour party oi the Commonwealth. We have always deplored the decision, not merely for the reason given, but because, if caiTied out successfully, it would mean the affliction of New Zealand with the three-party system which has so grievously hampered the political development of the Commonwealth. But the news which has recently reached us from Christchurch shows that the Labour Party is more likely to paralyse itself by a division of its forces than to enter into serious competition with the two great Parliamentary parties if it persists in its present irreconcilaole tactics. Even if it can present *an absolutely united front to all opponent's, its chances of success along these lines appear to us to be very small ; but if this condition is not satisfied, the new venture must fail disastrously, and imperil by its failure the success of the legitimate objects of the unions. This is the possibility which even the most sanguine or the most thoughtful members of the party must be seriously contemplating now in the light of recent happenings in Christchurch. Several of the most important unions, amongst which the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiners, the Coachmakers' Union, the •Bricklayeis' Union, and the Hotel, Club, and Restaurant Employees' Union are specially mentioned, have decided to secede from the Canterbury Trades and Labour Council. The reason given for these secessions is reported by the Press Association to be "that the council, instead of dealing at its meetings with purely unionist matters, practically devotes the whole time to the discussion of general politics. It is contended that the council was never intended to become a political machine, and its rules are cited in support of this contention. . . . Others state that the council is merely a political and Socialist organisation." The other side of the case is also fairly stated in the Press Association message which we published yesterday. The non-seceders point out that in the political campaign of 1890, which instituted the present Liberal regime, the Trades and Labour Councils took an active part, and that the history and the records of the councils disprove the allegation that the introduction of politics is an innovation. This reply is conclusive against any critic who has contended that the unions should leave politics entirely alone. Total abstinence from politics would mean political impotence, and would cut off the Labour organisations from the possibility of promoting legislation which may be absolutely necessary to the effective pursuit of their .legitimate objects. A Labour Union is no more bound than a Nolicense League or a Friendly Society to stultify and efface itself in this way. But m pack case the question Is one of degree and of expediency. A Friendly Society is justified in promoting a petition to Parliament or in submitting questions to candidates on issues directly affecting "its order, as, for instance, last year, when a Friendly Societies Bill was before Parliament, and ultimately left for the succeeding Parliament to settle. On the other hand, a Friendly Society which devoted itself to a general political xn'opaganda would speedily come to utter ruin. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in any of these cases, but it is usually not difficult to see when, in any particular case, the line of moderation and good sense has been crossed. When the Canterbury Trades and Labour Council endeavours to get its constituent unions to commit' themselves to a policy of thoroughgoing Socialism,, it has surely crossed this line. The fact is that in this council, as in others, certain turbulent spirits have been hitherto allowed to exercise a power far beyond anything to which their numbers entitle them ; and we are 'glad to sea that in Obristchurch, where the Socialist element has been particularly active, the commonsense of the majority seems likely at lafct to re-assert Itself. The new Labour Party and the new Labour newspaper, which the Canterbury Trades and Labour Council desires to found, appear to a large and influential section of its clientele to be projects too chimerical at any rato for the support of the unions as such. (1) Nationalisation of monopolies, (2) the initiative and referendum, and the power of recall of all public officials, (3) free education, from the primary schools to the university — this strangely bizarre assortment of objects is presented as a sort of interim bill-of-fare. The complete code of a fighting policy will be submitted after the Labour Conference has met, but it is not to be wondered at that the unions above-named have decided to retreat without awaiting the decisions of the conference. There is probably nothing that they could have done better calculated to put a cheek upon the exuberance of that very militant body.