DISRUPTIVE FORCE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 40, 17 February 1937, Page 20

DISRUPTIVE FORCE

NEW LEFT WING

LABOUR PARTY TROUBLES

A "UNITY" CAMPAIGN

(From "The Post's" Representative.) LONDON, January 20. The British Labour Party is having internal troubles again. The chief thorn in its side at the moment is Sir Stafford Cripps. He is a man of strong and decided views and the courage of his convictions, which are not neces- . sarily those of the Labour Party. He caused it decided discomfort late last year by the speech in which he declared that it might be* a good thing lor the British workman if Britain were to be defeated in a war with Germany, a «view which the parly hastily declared that it did not entertain and for which Sir Stafford was called upon to answer to high party officials. Now Sir Stafford 'Cripps has been instrumental in the formation of a Left Wing United Front, comprised of the Socialist League (of which he is one of the leaders), the Communist Party, and the Independent Labour Party. This has caused disruption in the Labour ranks. The Labour Party refuses to countenance the alliance and has warned its members to stand by the decision of the next party conference or to take the consequences, which means expulsion. The object of this new section has been described as an effort to paint the Socialist movement a brighter red. The division of feeling within the Labour ranks is. of some years standing, since the Independent Labour Party broke away from the main body in 1932, and the Socialist League was formed to' absorb those members of the I.L.P. who preferred to remain within the Socialist Party. Now the pot has boiled over again, and most of the members of the league have gone over to the 1.L.P., i.o which the Communist Party has attached itself, no doubt with some satisfaction since, at the Labour Party's conference last year, affiliation with' the Communist Party was rejected. SOCIALIST LEAGUE DIVIDED. The Socialist League itself, however, has not been too happy over the formation of the new "United Front," and this was shown by the voting at the private conference. Although the motion approving of united action with the other two parties was,carried by 56 votes to 38, there were 23 abstensions. These figures represent a card vote under a system in which delegates may represent a group of branches. The total membership of the new wing does not amount to more than about 20,000 people with six M.P.s, four belonging to the 1.L.P., one to the Communist Party, and another, Sir Stafford Cripps, to the Socialist League, which is about 3000 strong. The most remarkable thing about the manifesto which the new wing has issued is the support given it by certain trade union officials. The manifesto calls for "unity of all sections of the working class movement"; "unity in the struggle against Fascism, reaction, and war, and against the 'National' Government"; "unity in the struggle for immediate demands, and the return of a Labour Government, as the next stage in the advance to working-class power"; "unity through the removal of all barriers between sections of the working-class movement, through the strengthening of trade unionism and co-operation, through the adoption of a fighting programme of mass struggle, through the democratisation of the Labour Party arid the trade union movement"; "unity within the framework .of., the /Labour Party and the trade unions?' j;.; ; ! "These are the ohi°f>tiv?e- "f (hose re-. sponsible for launching the unity campaign—a campaign to revitalise the activity and transform the policy of the Labour movement. Today is no time for defeatism or for breakaways; today is no time for retreat or for the abandonment, of working-class unity in favour of class collaboration; today is the time for a united 'challenge and attack." OPPOSITION TO FASCISM. A call is made for opposition to Fascism and the militarisation of Great Britain. Other points in the policy outlined in the manifesto are: The nationalisation of the arms and mining industries; abolition of the caste and class, system within the armed forces; T.U.C. scales for unemployment benefit; lion-contributory pensions of £1 at sixty; effective'control of the banks and stock exchanges to prevent gambling and private profiteering. The manifesto concludes: "We stand for action, for attack, for the ending of retreat, for the building of the strength, unity, and power of the working class movement." The "unity" campaign opens in Manchester, and is to conclude in the Albert Hall, London, on April 4. Commenting upon the league's action, the "Daily Herald," the Labour national daily,- said in a short, leading article entitled "Self-Doomed": "By. its re- j grettable decision to form a 'United | Front' with the Communists and the--1.L.P.',-:the Socialist League cuts itself j oil from the ; Labour Party. It has been pleaded in excuse of the Socialist League that it is merely exercising its democratic right to try to change party policy This is the merest rubbish. The Socialist League is directly conti-avening party policy. It is evident from the vote that many of the! league's 3000 members will not follow their leaders, but will remain in loyal and active partnership for democratic Socialism with the 420,000 individual and 2,000,000 affiliated members of the Labour Party. For the decision leaves the league xvith no life or purpose of its own. Communists will swallow it. Tt is almost out of sight now." "SHARING THE EMriRE." While the Labour Party's troubles were being aired in the Press, Mr. C. R. Attlee, Leader of the Opposition, caused considerable comment by a speech in Paris in which he was reI ported to have made a p^ea for "sharing the Empire," and to have referred to the Empire; as one of the "toys" which must be given up. He was speaking on the position of democracy in Europe, and the need to safeguard it igainst Fascism and Bolshevism. Later, Mr. Atllee vigorously denied "chat he had in his. speech suggested in any way that the British Empire should be partitioned or that a new political frontier should be drawn. He also declared that he was not a partisan of a policy, of/war or hostility to the dictatorships. In defence of Mr. Attlee, the "Daily Herald" attacked the Victorian bosoms of two Right Wing Conservative newspapers, for their "gross misrepresentation" of the speech, and declared: " 'Carving up' the Empire is not an issue in British politics. The Labour Party, has explicitly condemned the idea. Mr. Attlee expressly rejected H In his Paris speech. Its only advocate is the 'British' Union of Fascists. But what is an issue, and a real and urgent issue at that, is whether the economic benefits of trade in colonial mp'-'.ets is to be reserved to the Powers possessing those colonies or shared on equal terms with all nations "Throughout the seventy years preceding the Great War Britain did offer equality of trade to all in her colonial markets. But after the war, first with the Colonial Preference Act, later with the Ottawa Agreements, that great and generous policy was abandoned, and instead Britain began more and more to shut other nations from the

benefits of access to her colonies, more <md more to exploit them for hersell.

"This policy, in the opinion of the Labour Party, is selfish and immoral, rt inflicts economic hardship on others and increases economic misery, which breeds Fascism and war. It prevpnts the recovery of world trade, from which Britain, particularly its special areas, stands to gain as much as any nation. It intensifies the danger of aggression against the Empire, by making it an object of jealous desire. It should be abandoned as a contribution to world peace and Imperial security, fhat Is what Mr. Attlee said in Paris."