THE LABOUR PARTY

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 9, 11 July 1922, Page 5

THE LABOUR PARTY

IS IT FIT TO GOVERN?

' AN INTERESTING DEBATE.

"That the New Zealand Labour Party is fitted to Govern," was the subject of an interesting debate conducted by the Victoria University, College 'Debating Society on Saturday night. \ The mover, Mr. J. W. Davidson, contended that the'most obvious characteristic distinguishing the Labour Party from every other political party in New Zealand was the fact that it had a definite objective, in the light of which it formulated its whole practical programme, and .solved all the problems which, as a political party, it was called upon to deal with from time to time. ■The common basis of the present, discontent was a vague apprehension, on the part of men and women that their lives were being fashioned for them by external forces which, if they only had the vision and the determination, would be controlled and made to serve the common interests of the race. The industrial revolution had marked the appearance of a new power in society—passing from the stag© of individual production, we had reached the stage when the machinery of production was in the hands of a, class upon whom the vast majority were dependent for their livelihood. .Man, in fact, had become the |tender and servant of machines. Beside that situation, the ameliorative reforms of the other political parties wer» hopelessly inadequate. Labour proposed to'restore the natural condition by vesting the title to the machinery of production in the State. and delegating the control and management to th» workers engaged in the industries, to make man the master of the machine, and subject Blind mechanical power to the general will and conscience. Labour proposed to identify the economic interests of the master and the servant with their human interests, but, above everything else, Labour's programme would enable men and women to find an impulse for their creative impulses through the processes of industry, and to make the next step towards the fashioning of their own lives. In1 opposing the motion, Mr. A. Free submitted that if Labour attained power, having a knowledge of past history, it would govern with a spirit of vindictaveness that would not operate in the interests of the community. Furthermore, the remedy of nationalisation was a proven failure, and in that respect ■. LaTxmr's platform was a fallacy, and its'ideas utterly impracticable. Labour preached unselfishness, but its leaders were as selfish as the generality; it denounced acquisitiveness, but its followers were as keen on acquiring property as its . opponents, i In New Zealand some of the legislation which had proved most beneficial to the people had been introduced by Conservative Governments. Repeatedly, Labour had been offered,measures of reform which constituted important advances in progress, notably the Whitley Council scheme, which, in its blindness, it had refused as mere conciliatory measures.' In the last analysis it has been found that the statesmen who could best i govern a country were drawn from the wealthy classes, and it was among such people that we should look for a party "fit to govern" in this country. The more weajthy were not as selfish and would not treat their inferiors with the same harshness'as tlreir employees would treat them if given the opportunity. Mr. Free quoted statements from the speeches of Labour leaders who recognised the utter impossibility of Labour's ideas, and who realised that there wei'6 !no short cuts to the millennium. Socialism had roused the spirits of many,' but j its impracticability doomed it« adherents to disappointment, and the electors of New Zealand should think very seriously before they abandoned the real and possible reforms of the average political party to_ highly impossible theories of I Labour idealists.

A considerable discussion followed among members of the society, and on being put to the meeting, the motion was declared lost by ou« vote.

The judge, Mr. D. Smith, LL.M., in delivering his criticism,1 placed the five best speakers ml the following order: — : Jiessrs. Davidson, Campbell, Wood, Haigh, and Free. v

The mover was supported by Mr. R. M. Campbell, and the opposer by Mr. D. R. Wood. Mr. H. M'Cormick occupied the chair.

The meeting closed with a hearty rote of thanks to the judge. .