LABOUR'S MANY VOICES

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 123, 27 May 1930, Page 8

LABOUR'S MANY VOICES

, When Labour entered Uie political field as a separate party years ago, stalwart old Socialists stood for Socialism, and persuaded themselves that they meant it. "The Labour programme has ' : undergone many changes since then. Socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange still stands as the objective of the party; but the Party, has changed,.. and the programnle has been amended. Mr. . Asquith once referred to the "heterogeneous army that marches with uneven step under the Labour banner." The description applies equally well to New Zealand Labour's army. It includes all sorts and conditions, from the All-red Socialist, to the disgruntled man of no particular politics. Td. satisfy all, the Party haS framed its programme in a spirit of compromise, and made it evAi more vague in the manifesto which sets out its immediate objective. We would not go so far 'as Mr. Mander went in his debate with Mr. Fraser last night and charge the average Labour Party speaker "with telling a different tale according to the particular audience before him at the moment"; but we do say that the vagueness of the platform'lends itself to differences ok interpretation, and that there are these differences. Qn^ land. defence ■ and tariff policy it is impossible to pin the Party down to a definite course of action. On. defence it certainly stands for the abolition of compulsory training, but it refuses to say what it would put in its place. On land. tenure it has forsaken the "usehold" and •nationalisation and come down to something closely resembling leasehold. On. the tariff it proposes nothing mofethan an investigation. Mr. Fraser neither explained nor defended this vagueness. He maintained that the defence policy'- was a common-sense one, but commonsense is a much-abused term. Whose common-sense is to determine the policy'when Labour has power? Is it the common-sense of the "millions for murder" writer, or the commonsense of the milder man who perceives that total disarmament in the Dominion will not usher in the millennium? ; One statement Mr. Fraser did make which had the appearance of being definite. Finance, he stated, was too important to be i.n private hands; the country would have to realise lhat and take control of the whole credit system. But this

requires elaboration. If the.Stale is to control the credit system, how will it set about the business? Even a Stale Bank could not do all the' work. Will it take over all mortgages, all liabilities, and all assets? And does Mr. Fraser set his opinion against that of Mr. Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the British Labour Government, who has testified to the better results accruing in Britain, where banking is under private control, than in countries where the State takes a hand? Does Mr. Fraser propose to fqllow Australia, with a measure of State control, because New Zealand, with private control, is at present better off?