PROGRESS & PROGRAMMES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 141, 12 December 1923, Page 4

PROGRESS & PROGRAMMES

The " New Statesman " is not a Labour paper, though on many points it is in sympathy with Labour policy. On the other hand, it has no leanings towards Conservatism or Liberalism. Its attitude to Labour—sympathy without blind support—qualifies it to express an interesting opinion upon the. Labour Party's prospects in the Jpresent crisis. ' The opinion of Mr. Clifford Sharp, editor of the "New Statesman," is that a LiberalLabour Coalition, with Labour as the predominant partner, would seem the best solution from the viewpoint of Labour and the public interest. Such a, coalition would involve the modification of the Labour programme, for Mr. Sharp adds: "If Labour is always going to refuse of.lee until it has a clear working majority, and is also to carry out its own programme, it is likely to have to wait till Doomsday." The alternatives for Labour, as Mr.. Sharp sees them, are: office now and part *of the programme; or opposition for ever and none of. the programme. Doomsday is too distant and indefinite a date; but it is clear that even if the recent rate of Labour progress is maintained, it must be many years before the Party is able to seize and hold the reins of Government unaided. And it must not be forgotten that extensions of the franchise have probably been of more advantage to. Labour than to the older parties'* so that progress at an equal rate is not to be relied on.

The official spokesmen of Labour differ from Mr. Sharp as to the choice before them, because they believe that office without compromise is near at hand. The "Daily Herald" condemns the coalition idea, but thinks that 4f Labour has a bold policy it may frighten the other parties into letting it through. Mr. Ramsay Macdonald says that Labour might have dropped- the capital lev}', but it was not seeking to snatch seats. The view of the no-compromise members of the Labour Party is even more forcibly stated by the Labour correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph."

Some urge Labour to postpone the capital levy issue and coalesce with the Liberals in social reforms, which would employ their joint energies for several years (he writes). These quite misunderstand the policy of the Labour Party. The capital levy is only a shoit step along the road to the establishment of a Socialist Commonwealth, in which collective ownership by the State would be put in place of the capitalist system of private enterprise, until all production, distribution, and exchange are socialised.

But though the no-compromise spokesmen may make a brave parade, there can be no doubt that many Labour voters (and some members) are wondering now whether it would not be wiser to seek to represent the great moderate opinion of the country rather than wait many years for a mandate covering Labour's whole programme. It has been wisely said that the great safeguard of British politics has been that there has been no great gulf between the two parties, so that a change of Government has involved no revolutionary disturbance. The conservatism of tho average voter has provided this iafeguaid, nod will,

•no doubt, continue to do so; and Labour will no^ win office on a majority vote until its policy is near enough to the policy of the other parties to preclude the dangers of revolutionary change. If Labour diminishes that -danger (and this applies also in New Zealand) by modifying its programme and moderating the tone of its leadership, it will hasten the day when, in the natural political order, it will be entrusted with office. But if it persists in the task Mr. Macdonald has set it, and tries to educate public opinion and learns nothing itself, its period of probation may extend, not.as long as Mr. Sharp predicts, but long enough to make further extension of no moment to the present generation.