THE LABOUR PARTY.
9'SHE birth of the new party, the Labour Party, is one J._ of the most important events of the General Election. Of the fifty or so Labour Members who have been returned to the House of Commons, only about thirty belong to the new party, the others being ordinary Liberals or Radicals who also happen to be working men. These will, no doubt, on many questions vote with the Labour Party, and to a great extent share their views • but they must be classed as Liberals, and not as members of an independent group. We do not doubt that in future we shall often find ourselves in very strong opposition to many of the proposals of the Labour Party ; but notwithstanding this fact, we desire to say that the return of so many Labour men to Parliament by no means annoys or alarms us. On the contrary, we believe that it is for the public good that working men should be able to send so many members of their own class to Parliament, and we feel a sense of pride that this should have been accom- plished under conditions which might at first sight seem unfavourable to Labour representation. It shows the grit and independence of the British working man, and still more his power of co-operation and his ability to discard any feeling of jealousy, that so large a body of Labour men should be sent to a Parliament, not only where Members are not paid, but when they have to provide for the official and unofficial expenses of an election. To have accomplished this is a piece of self-help worthy of the highest praise. Just as no other nation has yet managed to place a working man—and a working man who has not risen out of his class, in the material sense— in the highest governing circle, so no other nation has yet numbered amongst its representatives fifty working men. As we said last week, we attribute a great deal of this success to the fact that our Members are not paid. Payment of Members would, we believe, have the result of encouraging, not the working-man representative, but the professional politician.
With a great part of the programme of the Labour Party we are naturally out of sympathy. We are bound to say, however, that, as far as we understand it, it is in no true sense anarchical, or even revolutionary. Some of the proposals will, we expect, be found by the men who now urge them to be impossible of realisa- tion, while others would, if carried, have results very different from those intended. They would injure, not improve, the condition of the poorer classes. What, how- ever, is more important than the actual programme— the programmes of all parties .go far beyond what is ever likely to be accomplished—are the means by which the Labour Party propose to push their policy. These means are essentially non-revolutionary. There is no foolish talk of force or obstruction. They desire to get their way, like other parties in the State, by persuading a majority of the nation to adopt their views. If they can do that, then assuredly their policy will not only prevail, but have a right to prevail. In other words, the new Labour Party are a Constitutional party, and if they win, will win by honest and legal means.
The leaders of the new party will, we trust, not take it amiss if we venture to address to them one or two words of general advice as to their Parliamentary position. In the first place, we would strongly advise them to strive to carry out their policy by hard Parliamentary work and by persuading the House of Commons, rather than by any attempt to traffic in their votes, and to gain Parliamentary weight and influence by the apparently easier method Of selling their influence to the highest bidder in the political auction. Powerful and eager groups in the House of Commons are always liable to be dazzled by the prospect of "holding the balance between parties," of "playing off one side against the other," and of "making compacts with party leaders." We venture to say that this notion that great causes can be made to prevail by a system of House of Commons' huckstering is a pure delusion. Groups which appear to hold the balance between the regular parties in the State may no doubt gain their will on minor points, or may further the ambitious aims of a particular man, but they do not win great victories. Look at the example of the Irish Nationalists. For some thirty years they have persistently told us, and no doubt have believed, that they were going to achieve their object by selling themselves in the Parliamentary market to the highest bidder, and by holding the balance between Conservatives and Liberals. Yet, as a matter of fact, they have never succeeded, and never will succeed, through such tactics in achieving their cardinal aim. While appearing to make use of the two great parties in the State, those parties have in reality made use of them. Again, the party which has been allied with the Nationalists has always suffered grave disconsideration in the world of politics. The fact is, the country pro- foundly distrusts "unnatural alliances," and. if it sees men working together in Parliament whom it knows to be essentially opposed to each other, it will always, in some way or another, contrive to refuse to ratify the bargains which they have made. If, then, the new Labour Party are wise, they will refuse to con- template any such unnatural alliances, will rely upon their own efforts, and will decline to yield to the tempta- tion to score apparent victories which will turn out in the end to be nothing but defeats. The action of Mr. Bradlaugh in Parliament is an example of the better method. Owing to his ability, his persistence, and his moderation, he exercised a very great influence in the House of Commons ; but that influence would have been destroyed if he had ever attempted to gain his ends by trafficking with those to whom he was diametrically opposed. If we were cynically inclined, and desired to do injury to the Labour Party because we are opposed, and strongly opposed, to many of their tenets, we should delight in seeing them take action exactly contrary to what we have advised ; for nothing, we are convinced, will sooner destroy them as a party than any attempt to hold the balance between parties, and to work, now with the Nationalists, now with the Unionists, and now with both combined, in order to extort concessions from the Government. We do not, however, wish to see the Labour Party ruined, however much we are opposed to them. We would far rather see them remain strong and respected in the House of Commons, even though they were thus enabled to exer- cise a greater influence on politics. We want to hear the proposals of the Labour men discussed on their merits, and to see the members of the party occupying a firm and trustworthy position.
Before we leave the question of Labour representation we desire to express our satisfaction at the statements which have been made with regard to the leadership of the group. It is evident that the party are quite competent to find leaders among themselves, and realise how futile—nay, how dangerous—it would be to place at their head a politician drawn from the ranks of the Liberal Party. The rejection of all notion of such leadership shows, in our belief, the wisdom and good sense of the new group, and promises well for their action in Parliament. If they are to win the respect of the House of Commons and the nation, they must win it on their own merits, and not through clever Parliamentary tactics. They must he independent, not in the narrow, but in the wide sense. For ourselves, we have always opposed the group system as likely to injure our Parliamentary life, and to give too great power and influence to individuals ; but if we are to have groups, it is essential that they should "play the game" squarely and straightforwardly. We have just had a warning of the results of political tactics when applied to a; nation which is essentially plain-dealing and straightforward. If the Labour Party can read the signs of the times, they will take that warning to heart. Let us say once more that, though we expect to be in many cases strongly opposed to the Labour Party, we feel no alarm at their existence, and trust and believe that they will supply a useful element in our Parliamentary life. They will, we hope, at once recognise the full responsibility which rests upon Members of Parliament. That is, they must not take a parochial or class view of the House of Commons, and declare that this or that question does not interest them because it affects, not Labour, but merely foreign or Colonial affairs, or the interests of the Military, Naval, or Judicial Service. They are Members of Parlia- ment, not delegates, and they should apply their minds to, and. give their votes on, all questions, domestic or Imperial, as conscience and common-sense bid them.
Previous page
