BRITISH LABOUR.

Grey River Argus, 31 March 1926, Page 8

BRITISH LABOUR.

PARLIAMENTARY PARTY. (“Labour Statesman,£’ Canada). The Parliamentary Labof Party, as the 141 Labor members of thff House of Commons are called, have afief ji strenuous campaign elected their executive committee for the coming year. It is almost solidly pro-MacDonald; the latter’s critics wpre snowed under. The result represents a reversal of last year when George Lansbury, the chief advocate of more radical tactics, headed the poll. Lansbury was second from ,the bottom this time, polling less than half the vote of Phillip Snowden, who led tho poll. Colonel Wedgwood and John Wheatley, Loth ex-members of •MacDonald’s Cabinet and recently his most vigorous critics, at first refused to accept nomination, later did, and were defaated, The new executive in order of election is - Phillip Snowden, William R. Graham,' J. If. Thomas. E. Lees-Smith, Ben Smith, Robert Smellie, C. P. Trevelyan. Tom Shaw, Stephen Walsh, Sidney Webb, G. Lansbury, William Adamson, Hugh Dalton. Eight ot those were Ministers in the Labour Government. “Complete endorsement of the Labour Government policies, same of MacDonald, and defeat of the advertised ‘ginger group’ iu the House, - ’ is one interpretation of the result given by members. An opposite interpretation is, “The majority voted on promises, or hopes, of being included in the next Labor Government.’’

The fact is that, for the first time, this hitherto democratic party shows definite signs of evolving an official group machine, which may become not unlike that of the two old parties. Secretary Arthur Henderson, by a new- kind of ballot, put a sense of personal responsibility into each member of the party. The voting, supposed to be correct, was for the first time on numbered ballot papers, thus enabling the secretary to know how each man voted. A number protested, ami some refused to vote. The mutter has so far been kept secret.

Another fact is that despite the members’ frequent criticisms of MacDonald they know thefo is no one among them to replace him. Fierce charges were launched at Kim in the series of party private conferences, too fierce, lin fact, for they caused a revulsion lof feeling. Also MacDonald’s trench'■ant speech in tho House, in defence 'of the Communists convicted recently by the Government, left his ‘‘left” critics flat. Finally, at one of tho ■party's hottest meetings, MacDonald enplureil the open admiration of every section by stating his critics’ ease better than they could state it. and then demolishing it by showing how many times in the past such tactics as they wanted had failed Dissatisfaction with the party's leadership and position is genuine enough, but there will b.> change unless forced bv some crisis, tush perhaps as the coal situation H6M May,.—“Labour Statesman,”