WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE LABOUR PARTY ?
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our "News of the Week " paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.] [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I was interested in the contributions made in recent issues of The Spectator on the above subject. He would be a stupid member of the Labour Party who supposed his Party stood in no need of improvement. I know of no Labour Member so complacent. Indeed, the most common of Labour Party habits is self-criticism and the Party's growth is due in no little part to it. But I feel that the question as framed begs only one answer, and in minimising the weaknesses of other Parties, affords a diversion for those who apprehend Labour's remarkable growth and recovery from the events of 1931. The question, if asked often enough, creates the idea that something is " wrong," whatever the contents of the word " wrong " may be and from whatever standpoint the word is used.
Labour's opponents never tire of suggesting that the progress of the Party is arrested ; that it is out of tune, distrusted by the electorate, inexperienced, and ineffectual in gauging modern needs ; that it is poor in leadership, without men of " acknowledged eminence and capacity," inadequate in argument, confused in policy, uncertain in will and actuated by narrow sectional interests. It is no reply to say that the Labour Party is no worse and no more " wrong " than other political parties.
I reflect sometimes as I watch the Government Front Bench that so far it has shown a poor capacity in both foreign and social policy, and I wonder what " acknowledged eminence " really is, and how it is that party organisers are able to inspire trust in commonplace men. The " eminence " of Ministers appears often to be made by the hacks of the party Press, and when propaganda is clever and expensive enough, the public is made to acknowledge it too. I doubt if the record of Baldwin, Simon, MacDonald or Snowden will stand any searching test. Each has lost the great volume of public confidence they once enjoyed because of proved incapacity in the field of action. In point of fact, the distinction of leaders is due in no small way to their finding themselves, almost fortuitously, in positions of authority in which they are supported by considerable party Press publicity. Such facilities are less enjoyed by the lesser known Labour spokesmen, who do not lack sincerity or com- petence, nor the grasp of principle and liberality of view.
Whether Labour's progress is arrested or not is answered by how one reads events. We are invited to believe that a hindrance to advance is " ' the baleful influence' of the trade unions." We are told that the Unions lay claim to seats where there is a majority of electors who are industrially organised ! As if the industrially organised have not first- class men in their ranks, or as if there is something wrong in a Member representing the major interest of his constituency because he belongs to it ! Who is likely to represent a mining constituency more effectively than a miner ? But do the mining constituencies always send a miner to Westminster ? Do the textile areas ? A cursory examination of representation in the House shows that this is not the case. Nevertheless, it is delared, the Trade Unions exercise a real money power in the selection of candidates. This is Satan himself casting out devils ! It is not denied that the poverty of the Labour Party is at times a severe handicap, and in certain constituen- cies, a candidate whose union can contribute to his maintenance, should he be elected, and to the upkeep of his constituency and the election fight, is apt to be given special consideration. But anyone familiar with the constituency Labour Parties will know that, as organisation has increased in strength and activities have been extended, they have shown genuine independence in the choice of candidates. Again, a cursory examination of the Labour candidate list will show this.
We are also reminded that the T.U.C. has considerable influence on the policy of the Parliamentary Labour Party. There is, of course, a National Council of Labour on which the T.U.C., the Labour Party Executive and the Parliamentary Labour Party are equally represented for the purpose of co- ordinating policy and activity. That is as it should be, but it does not follow that political labour continuously surrenders to the trade unions, or that the trade unions invariably urge a " non-social " or sectional view, or that the unions are always actuated by " vested interest." The contrary is almost con- sistently true. The trade unions have helped to make the political labour movement in order to secure a better and different social order, i.e., a new economic system serving national ends. The Labour Party exists to change the present society into something more co-operative, equal and free, and it is no discredit to the unions that they exert an influence for this purpose.
Policy in the Parliamentary Labour Party is recommended by its Executive with due regard to Party Conference discus- sions and decided, after free debate, at the weekly party meetings. Lord Snowden in his article mentioned that the Socialist influence in the Party is considerable, and that it is responsible for its programme and propaganda. If the reader will refer to any considered motion moved by the Party in the House of Commons this session he will rarely find any depar. ture from the declared Socialist objective and policy. Rarely will he discover an industrial or economic decision taken on other than social grounds. The Party springs from the exploited, but sometimes its supporters complain that the cry of the " bottom dog " is not heard often enough.
There is another assertion. The Labour Party is said to have lost its ethical impulse and its " pioneer " zeal ; what LS the evidence of this ? True, political propaganda is conducted along different lines, for the habits of people have changed. But in every constituency the splendid spirit that launched the Party endures.
We are invited to accept the fatuous statement that Labour lacks a reasonable constructive programme of social reform and that a more comprehensive programme of change to Socialism repels men and women of progressive sympathies. Lord Snowden denounces platitudinous candidates and com- plains when the Party attempts to indicate how socialist policy could be applied to important industries and services ! Pre- sumably, the less of Socialism and the more of generalities the better ! The less the groundwork of Socialist advance is examined and explained—the more ambiguity and the less clarification of Labour Policy—the more progressive men and women will be won ! Is it not time men like Lord Snowden read Labour Party literature, read its policy declarations, and listened to what are the immediate points in social reform demanded by the Party ?
It is just silly to declare Labour candidates incompetent. Snowden simply does not know anything about the quality and calibre of Labour candidates. It is cheap and ill-founded argument. Does Labour want leaders with powerful person- alities ? Labour had them in days gone by. A Labour Party Conference is refreshing these days because it is not over- shadowed by dominant and positive persons who were often proved wrong and were often ignorant in debate. At least discussion today is on the merits of questions brought before the Party meetings. Let the critics of the Labour Party try again. The Party is a movement consistent with the genius of the British people ; it is broad based with a social outlook ; it is human, makes mistakes at times and has its setbacks. But it is the effective opposition to the present reactionary Government and is destined to enter (Alice with power and to fulfil its purpose in changing the economic and social structure
Previous page
