LABOUR POLICY

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 7 October 1936, Page 7

LABOUR POLICY

DEFENCE AND ARMAMENTS "PLAIN SPEAKING AT CONFERENCE, (United Press Association -By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) LONDON, 6th October. “I am going: to speak bluntly. Britain in 1931 was secure in a military, naval and air service sense. To-day that security has gone. If a Labour Government was in power to-morrow, it would be compelled to proceed to increase British armaments.” Thus Mr H. Dalton, when moving the resolution on defence and armaments, opened a lively debate at the Labour Conference at Edinburgh, He proceeded to say that treaty breaking had become a daily Fascist habit. The Government had a crushing responsibility for what happened. The sly evasions of Sir John Simon, the prim pretences of Sir Samuel Hoare, the feeble amiability of Mr Anthony Eden, the lazy lack of leadership of Mr Stanley Baldwin and the senile vanity of Mr Ramsay MacDonald had contributed to the plight of Britain and the world.

MOTION DEBATED

MR LANSBURY OPPOSES ARMAMENTS CANNOT SAVE THE WORLD (Received 7th October, 10.35 a.m.) , LONDON, 6th October. Mr H. Dalton, moving the armaments motion at the Labour Conference, after criticising the present Government, said the time had come when Britain must tell the Fascist states, “there is a limit. So far and no further.” But she must also say. “Come, join us and state your grievances.” Mr Arthur Henderson, in seconding the motion, said that the raw materials of the world must be pooled. Lord Strabolgi said that the time had come when the democratic and socialist powers must be armed for mutual support. “I don’t want the Labour Government to be weak and open to bullying, blackmailing and threats from Fascist powers.” Mr George Lansbury opposed the motion. He said that armaments could not save the world. Even the dic-

tatorship nations must be brought to the round table and led along the road to peace. Mr Charles Dukes said the dictator nations should be told that if they wanted a decision by the sword, we would not flinch.

Mr C. R. Atleeij, winding up the debate, denied the motion committed the Labour Party to the Government’s rearmament policy. Labour would continue to criticise the armaents programme and decline to give a blank cheque. That did not mean they said that no arms were required. Collective security must be backed by a sufficient force to deal with an aggressor. We were not prepared to .be conquered by Fascism either from without or within.

CARRIED BY BIG MAJORITY • ■ . • ‘ f'J/A ' A card vote resulted: — For the motion 1,738,000 Against . 657,000 The resolution was as follows: — “That in view of the threatening attitude of dictatorships which are increasing their armaments at an unprecedented rate, flouting international law, and refusing to co-operate in the work of the organisation of peace, this conference declares that the, armed strength of the countries loyal to the League of Nations must be conditioned by the armed strength of potential aggression. The conference therefore reaffirms the policy of the Labour Party to maintain such defence forces as are consistent with the country’s responsibilities as a member of the League, the preservation of the people’s rights and liberties, the continuance of democratic institutions, and. the observance of international law. Realising the relationship between the policy of foreign Powers and armaments, and having regard for the deplorable record of the Government, the Labour Party declines to accept responsibility for a purely competitive armaments policy. It reserves its full liberty to criticise the re-armament programme of the present Government, and declares the continuance of vested interests in the private manufacture of arms to be a grave contributory danger to the peace of the world.”

LEAGUE OF NATIONS GROWN WEAKER BRITISH INTERNAL SECURITY GONE (British Oflirial Wireless) ■ (Received 7th October, 11.35 a.m.) RUGBY, Gth October. At the Labour Party Conference, Mr H. Dalton said the League of Nations had grown weaker, not stronger. International treaties had been broken shamelessly, without penalty and collective security had not been organised. British internal security had gone Dy the creation of great forces within striking distance. If a Labour Government came into power, British armaments under th ( Labour Government would be part planned on the system of collective security. “Armaments must bei at such a

level,” Mr Dalton added, “as to make sure that an aggressor should not succeed.”

FEDERAL LABOUR PARTY

ALLEGIANCE TO DEFENCE SCHEME ADEQUATE FOR AUSTRALIA’S NEEDS (United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) (Received 7th October, 11.5 a.m.) CANBERRA, This Day. The leader of the Federal Labour Party, Mr Curtin, announced the Party’s allegiance to “a defence scheme commensurate with Australia’s ability to maintain it and adequate for Australia’s needs.” Mr Curtin declared that no other country, not even Britain, could come to the rescue in time if Australia were attacked. Australia’s defence had to be assured by herself. It was the realisation of this fact that had dictated the whole consideration of the defence policy by the Australian Labour Movement.

ENVOYS FROM SPAIN

CHEERED BY DELEGATES (Received 7th October, 10.15 a.m > LONDON, Gth October. A scene occurred at, the Labour Conference at Edinburgh before lunch, when the secretary announced the arrival by air of two envoys from Spain. Delegates rose and cheered the envoys. Senor Asua and Senora Isabel de Palencia, who will address the conference later.