Evening Post. THURSDAY, AUGUST 1,1929. NEW MEANS TO OLD AIMS

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 28, 1 August 1929, Page 12

Evening Post. THURSDAY, AUGUST 1,1929. NEW MEANS TO OLD AIMS

Whatever we may think of the Labour Party's policy and principles, we cannot but admire its perseverance. With this perseverance in pursuit of an aim, it combines an ingenuity in devising and trying new means_ which is at times amazing. At one time land nationalisation was ! the party's policy; but, as that policy did not appeal to the country, it was changed for the usehold tenure, with a provision that no land should be sold or transferred except to the State. Before the campaign was over it was perceived that even this was too drastic, so it was modified by interpretation. Assurances were given that it would not apply to transfers by bequest, nor interfere with the rights of the urban cottageowner. Indeed, by a simple change of words the policy eventually became one for the abolition, not of land ownership, but of land agents, finally, the last signs of land nationalisation disappeared from the platform last election to give place to something closely resembling the old Liberal leasehold. A similar process is being applied in the modification of the Labour Defence policy. At one time this was an open an,d unashamed declaration of opposition to all defensive measures. By gradual stages it has been modified till we nave now a promise of such defensive measures as Labour judges to be necessary in the light of the time when it attains to office. Labour is indeed of an obliging and accommodating disposition; but we would prefer a greater measure of lrankness. If there has been a change of heart let it be accompanied by an open acknowledgment of past errors. As it is, we cannot believe that there is any change of heart. Labour is now as strongly opposed to Defence as formerly, but its leaders have learnt that the longest way round may be the shortest way home. Frontal attacks upon Defence have failed, so flank movements are being attempted. Contributions to the Singapore Base are condemned as absorbing f uiids which might be used for the .unemployed. The parly is rallying to the aid of religious objectors to military training, and condemning the present system, not for Us militarism chiefly, but for its alleged wastefulness and inefficiency. There is a new-found zeal for efficiency in Defence measures, and an indignant protest against the system because -it does not really produce soldiers. We might be tempted to examine these arguments more closely but for the antecedents of the parly which submits them. If these antecedents are examined one must conclude that, while a few members of the party may sincerely desire to see universal training replaced by a cheaper and more efficient system, the party as a whole seeks only abolition.

The arguments used last . night were, for the most part, old and familiar, though with a new emphasis on economy. The talc of prosecutions was told as it has often been told before, though Labour would not apply this argument against compulsion to any law of which it approved. It would not, for example, plead for the abolition of income taxation because some taxpayers are prosecuted for attempts to evade this tribute to the Stale. Nor would it cite thousands of prosecutions for breaches of traffic bylaws as a reason for permitting motorists to drive as they please. But die prosecutions are dragged out without any mention of the much greater number of cadets and territorials who cheerfully accept their obligations under the law. We are not prepared to argue that the present system is perfect and incapable of improvement. It has been modified considerably since it first came into operation, and further changes may be desirable. But if such changes are to be made they should be submitted by those who are not under suspicion of taking a roundabout road to abolition. When there is indeed no call for Defence, we shall be glad to see the time and money given to training devoted to some other preparation for good citizenship; but until that time arrives the public should beware of the antiDefence advocates who have become enthusiastic for efficiency and economy. Their advice should be received with the same suspicion as the advocacy of those friends of the League of Nations who would make a moral gesture for peace by cutting down our contribution to Naval Defence, secure in the knowledge that Great Britain will see that the Navy docs not suffer because we are saving.