vening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1920. LLOYD GEORGE & LABOUR

Evening Post, Volume XCIX, Issue 69, 22 March 1920, Page 6

vening Post. MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1920. LLOYD GEORGE & LABOUR

Last week the Observer, forecasted that Mr. Lloyd George^ in his projected address to tho Coalition- Liberals, would appeal'for the creation, of "a new party, composed of the moderate elements of the Liberals, Unionists, and Labour." To-day the reports of the address are to hand, and they seem to suggest that Mr. Lloyd George appealed to Liberals and Unionists only; At any rate, the Northcliffe press "criticises Mr. Lloyd George for identifying Labour v with Socialism, and urges that it is a false and dangerous doctrine, for it proclaims class warfare." It is.hard to believe that the Prime Minister committed the' injustice and indiscretion implied in the criticism. To treat all Labour as Socialistic, in the extreme sense of the word, seems to be a breach not only of political tact but of, political truth. We fail to see how any new democratic party, if it aims to be progressive, can refuse to co-operate with the moderate elements of Labour, or can shut its door's to individual Labour men, provided that they are prepared to sink, such planks of the Labour platform as the immediate nationalisation' of everything. Nationals sation itself is not an, anti-democratic principle. In ■ degree, every democracy admits it, practises it. And th(> fact that men like Messrs. Thomas and dynes. are on the same platform with nationalising extremists does not disqualify them from becoming in the future great democratic leaders, .any more than the late Mr. Chamberlain's ..advocacy of "ransom" prevented him from putting a social reform mantle on English Toryism. Mr. Lloyd George's* belief in private enterprise should riot amount to making an Ishmael of nationalisation. There is room for each; there is a place for both. Both co-exist in every civilised community. Mr. Lloyd George ■is reported as saying that "common ownership in Britain would', correspond with French communism and Russian Bolshevism." Presumably he stipulates common ownership of everything—ail act of extremism which, so /long as democracy is progressive, will remain outside the sphere of practical politics. But even if one assumes 1 that common, ownership is within practical reach, oven that would not bo on a par with Bolshevism, for Bolshevism aims to destroy Parliaments and nationalisation does riot." Doubtless, it tends to reduce their power, but already Parliaments have lost heavily in prestige, and further losses will inevitably overtake them urilesi they attunethemselves to the progressive spirit of the age. They will not do this, by shutting the door upon the best elements of Labour and K-acUcalism. for Labour provided the Prime Minister of tho Commonwealth and the Premier of tho Mother State, and- Radicalism was the origin elf Mi. Lloyd Gaorgs hiriuelf. He has only to gknoa into his own past to

see how useful a isane Labour party may be in the processes of political evolution. Not always from on top, but often from below, from the fire of the pit, will democracy draw its best, wisest, and most vital leaders. If the' following passages are to be construed as branding all Labour, tliey indicate an anti-Labour bias which can. bo of little use save to furnish ground for attacks like that of the Northcliffe press : \ i !'•■"'' Ho strongly urged the- Liberals to join hands with the Unionists to fight the SoI cialistic Labour Party, which was reaping the results of many years of prorjaI ganda by the Socialist wing. . . . While he remained a Liberal, he considered it the duty of all parties to Combine against Socialism. No party at the present fcimo was able to command a majority, and Conservatives and Liberals should not fight suicidally, and enable Labour to tr'umph. The policy of the new Coalition would be peace at home and abroad, opposition to Socialism, and tho development of the League of Nations. An ephemeral featuro of the rising tide of Labour in Australia wag ..the ahtiSocialism movement. The late Sir George Reid was unwise enough to lead an antiSocialist campaign, which failed; and its leader declared afterwards that nobody ever made a constructive success of an "anti" policy. If one is to do. something, he must stand for admething, and not merely against something. Is it .possible that Mr. Lloydl George is assuming in Britain the sort of fight which Sir George Reid lost in Australia ? Does he hone to win on anti-Socialism without I a progressive and constructive domestic j programme ? In spite of the visible evi--1 dence, most of his.adnrirers will hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative. Perhaps fuller reports will reveal in the Prime Minister's policy a wider vision and more constructive quality. Meanwhile, it is to be noted that even | the Coalition Liberals are not keen on j fusion. They do not sufficiently trust the conservative elements in British Unionism to sacrifice their own independence and mobility. And little wonder. For; despite Labour extremism, some of them are politically nearer io moderate Labour progressiveness than to Unionist, laissez' faire. And that is a condition that no.fusion can cure or ignore.