Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, OCT, 8, 1936. LABOUR AND DEFENCE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19140, 8 October 1936, Page 4

Poverty Bay Herald PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING GISBORNE, THURSDAY, OCT, 8, 1936. LABOUR AND DEFENCE

Few thing* speak more eloquently of the changed attitude of public opinion in Great Britain towards European affairs than the decision of tlic Labour Party to support the Government 's rearmament, programme. Many people, of course, will find in this decision evidence of illogicality and inconsistency, since it. was the Labour Government which initiated the policy that left Great Britain in u position of military inferiority, while some of its leaders arc still staunch pacifists and bitterly opposed to the stand of the parly as :i whole. The Labour Party in Britain is by no means alone in its uncertainty and vacillation on matters of foreign

policy, and its change of outlook is. more than anything else, evidence oi the difficulty nf maintaining any particular front in the face of the constantly changing conditions. The Labour leaders, however, arc hopeless ly divided between a variety of doc trines. During the Abyssinian trouble, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Lansbury, resigned because he could not agree with the policy of his colleagues on the question of sanctions. As recently as July last, the present Loader of the Opposition, Major Afieo, said he would not sup-

port the armaments policy of the Government. Within the last week or two, a Conner Labour Minister, Sir Stafford Cripps, expressed tlie hope that if war came in Flu rope it would be used for the purpose of a revolution in Great Britain. The Laboui Party as ;-. whole demands n nailed from against fascism, bid refuses bv an overwhelming majority to join with the Communists for the same

purpose. it is an interesting feature of ihe situation that the changes have been accepted, by the trade union

croups, and that the political party has been more or less compelled to fall into line. Thus it is that Messrs. Lansbury, AI lee, and (,'ripps, in Parliament, will be called upon to support a policy with which they personally disagree, although for different reasons in each case.

There is no longer reason lo doubt the attitude of the Labour movement ji, s h body, for recent discussions and decisions have all tended to show that in Great Britain, as in other countries, Micro is no room for party differences on the all-important question of national defence. The position wns succinctly stated by Dr. Dnlton

at the Edinburgh Labour conference when lie stated: "If a Labour Government were in power to-morrow, it would be compelled to proceed to increase. British armaments." There mav still he room for differences or opinion as io how rearmament should be carried out. and for criticism of foreign policy in general, but on the broad principle of making the nation sufficiently strong for all eventualities all parties are in accord. They also have in common the conflicting view-

points of some of their respective leaders. Dr. Dalton, after supporting the Government's defence programme, launched an attack on Sir John Simon, Sir Samuel Hoare. and Messrs, Eden. Baldwin, and MacDonald, using .such expressions as "sly evasions," "prim pretences," "feeble amiability," "lack of leadership," and "senile, vanity." This sort of talk may appeal to Dr. Dalton as good politics, but it is very poor logic since precisely the same epithets could be applied, even more effectively, to the various leaders with whom he is associated. At least, there has been little evidence of disunity among the National Ministers, but the Labour heads are shrieking their discord to the four winds of heaven.

Dr. Dalton alleged that it -was the policy of the British Government that had contributed to the plight of Britain and the world. The charge might well be applied to the British Labour Government, but it rings somewhat hollow when made against; the present administration. It was the Labour Party which thought the world would follow an example in unilateral disarmament; the Labour .Party which, by its weakness in regard to Egypt and India, created the impression that Empire .solidarity was a thing of the past; the Labour Party which reduced the strength of the navy to such an extent that Italy was able to ignore il: and the Labour Party which generally rendered the country so impotent that is was no longer an effective force in guiding world opinion. In the two most recent crises it. has spoken, and still speaks, with two voices. During the Abyssinian conflict, its politicians demanded pressure on Italy but refused tr go to war, and, indeed, by its previous policy, had made it impossible for Britain to do so. In the Spanish civil war it is demanding the suppres sion of fascism on the one hand and supporting a policy of non-interven-tion on the other. Not withstanding these tilings, however, there Is every reason to welcome the evidence oi agreement on tho necessity for rearmament, even though there may still be a divergence of opinion as tc the real reason for such a course. The blunt truth, in Or Dalton'? words, is that security has gone, and there should be no conflict of vie.Wf regarding the necessity for restoring it. Unlike some other countries, Britain's only motive is tho preservation of peace, and so long as there is a general recognition that her forceswill never be used for any other purpose there is no occasion for concern in any quarter.