"MAC” TAKES THE GLOVES OFF

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7980, 11 December 1911, Page 5

"MAC” TAKES THE GLOVES OFF

A REPLY BY MR DAVID McLAREN TO THE "DOMINION," DR NEWMAN AND THE MASSEY. PARTY.

When one is in a fight with a person who has lost all sense of decency, scruple or common fairness, and who prefers to hit treacherously rather than otherwise, the only thing to do is. to take off the gloves, mark .where you are going to strike and hit hard. A bully has no conscience and deserves no consideration.

lu 1908 I fought a political battle here and found all my then opponents fair fighters ;\in a word, gentlemen. During the first part’Of the present political contest I was again pleased to find that I had met gentlemen in the field. I acknowledge the fairness and clean sportsmanship shown by Mr Brodie and Mr Bolton, for though both fought hard they did nothing that I could’consider mean or underhanded,, hut fought within the

rules all the time. lu justice I rcco£-. ni&e this courtesy on the tart of these gentlemen. 1 fiml now, however, that I have to deal with a party and persons having seemingly no sense whatever or political scruple, dead to all common fairness and ready to misrepresent, falsely report, dUtort, mupg-lo and pervert known facts out of a spirit of hatred to serve their own mean ends. Mr Ramsay Macdonald, the leader of the British Labour party and the members of his party have acted in co-opera-tion with the Liberal party rather than with the Conservatives, because the Labour party consider they can got more of their own policy that way than by voting to turn tne Liberals out. The Labour party of Australia, when it was necessary, followed tlfo same course, and for the perfectly sound reason that Labour parties arc seeking democratic legislation in the interests of the masses outside of Parliament, and take the wisest course to reach that end. Until we are strong enough to effect these changes ourselves we will act with those who go furthest in the direction we wish to tuae.

There is no respectable newspaper m England that would think of saying that because Mr Ramsay Macdonald has tnus uteu tact and j augment he is a Liberal first and a Labour man next. To accuse Mv Macdonald, Mr Will Urooks and other Labourites in r-ngiand ol being mere ‘’nominal Labour men” becausethey are nut prepared ip vote w.th tno Conservatives to turn tne Liberals out would be rignuy regarded as a gross slander on rhe lives and characters ol tneso men. . .

It has been loft to the "Dominion” newspaper here to descend to this contemptible practice of mean, wretched criticism. This is the paper that some time ago published a 'iiu&l.oii my character and was required, through my lawyer, to insert an apology m three papers in Wellington. This they complied with. This is the paper which again, whilst the House was sitting, made another-mean, suggestive attack oh my character, and this is vhe paper which on the mornixig alter the recent poii comes out with a misleading article again by iuuueudo attacking my personal character. For the last fifteen years 1 have worked tor the creation of a distinct Labour party fought many elections to that end, refused to go in with , an y other, party, and given my full. share gladly to that end. That all this has been false the people do not believe, butI am satisfied tuey will judge it aj a mean, cowardly attack on the- part of the Opposition ’tor the •'Dominion to say that 1 am “a nominal Labour candidate," and when it goes °? to charge me with being "a Wai'dist first and a Labour man nest" I could only answer that with a word of four letters, wn l cn, as a gentleman, I prefer apt to use. fM statement that I have pledged myself to supfiort Sir Joseph Ward is distinctly untrue.- I have neither pledged myself to Sir Joseph Ward nor to Mr Massey. I have pledged myself to one party alone, the Labour party. X suppose that it X had said that X would vote tor the Opposition to turn the Liberals out that would have been proper “ipdependence Onii hypocrisy go further ? My attitude to wards the Liberals hero is the same as the attitude of the British labour -party to the Liberals there, and tt ts utterly false to name that as a. pledge to support the Liberal party. It is true that X am opposed to■ hlasseyism, and. so ta my party. The reasons I here give. WHY LABOUR IS OPPOSED TO MASSEY IBM. The definite reason why tba party is opposed to the Opposition is that the Massey party is_ definitely and decidedly opposed to labour. Xhe policy of Mr Massey's party te practically, the direct opposite to that of the Labour be truthfully said that the objectives of the two partes are so distinctly antagonistic that ‘‘ P er * m \ c i\": not support tko ono without at tho samo time opposing the other. , As a demonstration of tho correctness of this statement of mine I have to point out that the platform of our Now Zealand Labour party consists of: - , . (1) Two clauses affirming- tbo nationalisation of monopolies., • - . „ (2) Bight .clauses on land affirming the retention of Crown lands; leasehold tenure (renewable lease to. apply to .native and other lands acquired for. closer settlement): tenants right to improvements, limitation of area based on value, increment tax on land sales - , State cultiva-. tion of land to meet demands of people s food supply, increased graduated ■ laud WS)- Two clauses affirming a policy of national currency and self-reliance . by establishing a State bank with sole right of note issue, and non-borrowing. • • U) Five clauses affirming the abolition of Legislative Council, .proportional representation, initiative and. referendum. Parliamentary franchise for all local elections (this would include county elections in which plural voting still obtains).- Full political rights to all State employees. - ■ _ . , , , (5) Eleven clauses affirming a Right to Work Bill, unemployment insurance. State labour agencies, maximum working’ time eight hour day, a six day week and gradual reduction to a forty hour, week. Statutory preference to unionists,- equal pay for equal work for male and female workers. 1 Amendment of XVorkers Accommodation : Act (covering shearers, farm labourers, busbmen and others). Amended .Conciliation and ’ Arbitration Act, Legislative minimum wage. (6) Three clauses affirming a graduated income tax, with a super-tax on unearned incomes, graduated absentee tax, power to local bodies to place tax on socially created land values within their ■•■ boundaries. 1 ■ , , " , • , (7) One clause affirming our support ol the State system of education free and secular, with compulsory attendance up to fifteen -years of age. Continuation classes and provision for supplying education up to seventeen years of age. (8) A clause affirming the policy of social aid by pensions for widows and orphans and State assistance in maternity. . ' . , , , ~ (8) A clause affirming the right of the people to decide all questions submitted to them on a bare majority vote. - (10) A clause affirming support of the policy of arbitration and establishment of peace treaties towards the settlement of international disputes between uaout of those 35 clauses I find tho Opposition are - plainly against us on practically the whole. Xt may be said that the Opposition will not disagree with “the tenant's . right to improvements, proportional representation, unemployment insurance and widows pensions,” but even on these four clauses (out of tho whole 35) the Opposition will not be with us to protect tho private tenant’s right to improvements; proportional representation the' Opposition only wants to apply to the Legislative Council for tho purpose stated by Mr Massey "to make the Council stronger than tho House of Representatives." - . Unemployment insurance and widows pensions are, of coure, fashionable now, and nobody disagrees with these proposals. To sura up the matter there is one reason, and an absolutely sound one, why tho Labour party must oppose the so-called Reform party. It is because the body of self-styled reformers is a sham and make-believe on all matters of progress, the enemy of labour and the close friend of land monopoly, class dominance and reactionary principles. There is ono piece of unconscious humour in the “Dominion’s” article which almost moves mo to forget' tho vulgarity of the other portion. Tho paper is pleased to indicate’ that if I had "taken tho same stand as Messrs Carey and 'Young ... we should have been ready not to complain very much if he (myself) were to win on the second ballot, although. . . .” Well, to put U shortly, they wanted me defeated ly For pure and unadulterated humbug and nauseating hypocrisy, that takes the prize. Whether they complain much or little will trouble me not at alb The people behind this yellow curtain of joneeit, hatred, bombast and falsity I hold in utter contempt. . ’ • . A long-drawn-out advertisement in the

| " Evening Post” anpx.orting Dr. Nowi man repeats the false! statement of tho j ” Dominion.” It says that X havo declared myself an uunolder of tho Ward party—which is utterly, lalse. Tho ; trouble of those people is that’ neither have X declared myself an upholder of | the Massey party. I know that Dr, NowImau Is not responsible for what ho says politically. When he called tho Now Zealand people “ the suckers who paid for it,” lie did not mean it, but just said it, Wben he says ho is supporting tho ' leasehold by joining au out and out freei hold party he doesn't mean it, but merely pays it. When lie says be is not opposed to the Wald Government’s legislation, again ho does not mean it. This person cannot really represent himself, and ho. is therefore not fit to represent others.

But behold the trials of this glorious body of Reformers! Mr’ Bell (Oppositionist) tolls the public (hat tho Government people should support tho Opposition against Labour, and goes, on to savin effect, that the ideals o.f the two old parties are the same, their sympathies are the same, and only labour is wicked. What a beautiful ideal! " Not Understood ” to be recited just here. And this is the party that calls itself Reform and speaks of cleaning up tho politics of onr country. Why not commence with themselves?