Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1923. A COLOUR QUESTION.

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 January 1923, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1923. A COLOUR QUESTION.

“Please stop calling us Heels/’ was the plaintive appeal of our morning contemporary yesterday. The repetition of the term “lied'’ was described as “’nauseating/’ and many words were used to support the “Argus’s” unexpected claim that there is nothing red about the Dominion Labour Political Party. We should like to believe the assertion was wellfounded, but until it is proved to (lie contrary, we must regard Mr il. E. Holland, M.P., as possessing greater authority to speak on the subject than the “Argus.” and it cannot be denied that the Labour Leader has consistently upheld the Socialistic character of his following. The Socialists din into the ears of the world that lied is their colour, a lied Flag is their anti-national emblem, and practically everything appertaining to them “boasts” of being red this, that, or th(> oilier. What has happened io cause Dominion Labour Io seek another hue? Have Labour men at lasi, woke rip to the. excellence of the advice given to (hem by their friendly opponents, including ourselves, that red .spells ruin to (heir legitimate aspirations. Nothing could he better for the Dominion (han (hat the Labour movement, initiated lor (hi' primary purpose of i nt pro vi ng' i mlus I r i:i I con (lit ions by evolutionary methods, hut which hub semi its oi iginal plan added Io :ind nllered, until I here is liltle of I he original design 1011, should iletermine Io reject revolutionary ideas and return Io (he path ol sanity leading (o T(*:il progress. But we must ('unless Io being sceptical about (he genuiueuess of i he Labour Parly’s conversion, especially seeing (he quarter from whence the inference came. Try

as we might, we camnot regard our morning contemporary as being a real Labour journal. Jis policy is too often against the workers’ interests, and whilst it applauds any •’martyrdom strikes and go-slow bring [to misguided unionists, it declines to share the sacrifices entailed. Agaun it is seemingly enraptured with Communists, although this weird, political group) is scorned and derided by most Labour men. Our contemporary’s article yesterday was appropriately headed ■•lhe Red Cry,” and the column of tearful stulf might have evoked sympathy had there not been- a strong “crocodile” smell about the sobs. We put ai plain and polite (piestion to> Mr Holland the othei day, as to what was the real attitude of the Dominion Labour Party towards the Communists m this country —and the reply is not yet. Nothing daunted, we again appeal to him to let an expectant motion know if the “Argus is

justified in describing the tei_m “Red” as nauseating, and it the Labour M.’s T. have decided io drop for the time being* anything looking like Socialism, now that the general elections are over, and it is desired to attract the suppoi of some Liberals in the House when the Labour no-confidence motion is launched next week. The term -“Bed” was not bestowed by opponents, but flaunted by Socialists at every possible pppoii.uuity. The terrible “capltahsfit” Press had no option but to accept the Socialists’ own designation, and will adhere io he nomenclature until it is clear that it is no l more warranted.