The Star. SATURDAY, MAY 2, 1925. WHO’S WHO IN THE LABOUR PARTY?

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17527, 2 May 1925, Page 8

The Star. SATURDAY, MAY 2, 1925. WHO’S WHO IN THE LABOUR PARTY?

Supporters of the Labour Party in Christeluireh should be very keenly interested in a meeting that lias been called lor to-morrow night, in the Trades’ Hall, to discuss tile question of “ a united front.” The meeting has been arranged by the Communist wing of the parly, and presumably the speeches will be a plea for the retention of the Communists in the party, or a compromise that will fall short of the ultimatum of the Easter conference that Communists must get out or subscribe to constitutional methods of attaining the Labour objective. How far or in what manner the Labour Party intends to enforce this ultimatum is not quite clear, and there seems to be some foundation for “ Punch’s ” remark that what is wrong with the leaders is that they cannot see over the heads of their followers, who are marching on in front. At all events, it seems that the Labour leaders and not the Communists are the ones who have halted, and the Communists complain with reason that they are merely pursuing the party’s old policy, from which some of the leaders have now drawn back. And in that connection it will be noted that the leaders, so far, have not been very denunciatory of their Communist colleagues, because, no doubt, it is within recent memory that they themselves were decidedly sanguinary in their outlook until headquarters applied the soft pedal. And even to-day Christchurch people are treated to the spectacle of the Mayor-elect (the Rev J. K. Archer), mounting a Communist platform with the Rev J. 11. G. Chappie, to wobble about oil the subject of the Monarchy, following an inflammatory speech in favour of civil disobedience. Indeed, it is hard to say just who is who in the Labour movement at present, for there is a very subtle move afoot to undermine trades unionism on behalf of revolutionary Labour, and although the Easter conference of the, party took cognisance of the fact, there has been no definite line of cleavage so far, and Sunday night’s meeting is intended to prevent such a disaster, from a Communist viewpoint. And when Communists call for a united front, it is as well to ask exactly what that means. Moscow has been very active in the Old Country of late, and the call for solidarity has been raised there just as it is being raised in New Zealand. Mr Philip Snowden, who ought to he above reproach in relation to the just aspirations of Labour, had this to say in the “ Weekly Despatch ” of March 15:— The present wages movements in the mining and engineering industries and in the railway and other transport services are being exploited by the Communists for revolutionary purposes. A determined effort is being made to induce all these bodies to join together in a general strike which will hold up the community. The revolutionary aim is being kept in the background, and the workers are being appealed to on behalf of the solidarity of labour. “ Communists,” said Mr Snowden, “ inveterately oppose everything which may promote better relations between the employers and«the employed. Their object is to prevent any amelioration of the lot of the worker.” It is unnecessary to enlarge on what Mr Snowden says from such a close examination of the subject except to add that the Communist is essentially an agitator and not a believer in democratic ideals, and in his desire to create a new heaven and a new eartli he would abolish liberty and subject the proletariat to a tyranny less tolerable than that of the most reactionary regime. So that when the Communist talks of a united front he. is only intent on peaceful penetration, and those who associate themselves with the plea of solidarity should not complain if they become suspect in the eyes of the rank and file of the party. As a matter of fact, the Rev. .J. H. G. Chappie does not disguise his revolutionary aim, for he says that trades unionism is “ a passage to the great goal of Communism, and should he used as such.” What the people of Christchurch would like to know is where Mr Archer stands on this question. By an overwhelming vote of 289 to (53, the House of Commons carried the second reading of the Summer Time Bill, which makes daylight saving permanent for six months of every year. There were the usual feeble objections on behalf of agricultural interests, hut the state of public opinion on the subject could be gauged from the vote, which was a free one. Why this reform cannot he brought about in New Zealand it is hard to say, for the strongest argument that has ever been brought against it is that if men want daylight saving they can get up an hour earlier. The point of view of those who pul this argument forward is that men are so completely the slaves of habit that they have to put the clock forward in order to get up an hour earlier. It is a fallacious argument, of course, for the reasou that the mass of the people regulate the whole of their habits by the clock from stern necessity, and although anyone is free to go to bed an hour earlier and get up an hour earlier, lie would then find himself an hour early for his meals and his newspapers and his trains and everything else. But the real advantage of putting the clock on an hour is that leisure is best enjoyed after work, and that leisure that is enjoyed in sunshine or out of doors is the best kind of leisure. Indeed, science is on the eve of such discoveries regarding the value of sunlight to health, that the demand for daylight saving is hound to become irresistible.