THE FAILURE OF THE LABOUR PARTY. T HE Chesterfield election leaves
things very much where they were, except that it has pierced the Parliamentary Labour Party with an arrow sharper and more poisonous than any that has yet entered the body of that political St. Sebastian. We could wish for some reasons that the election had been anywhere but at Chesterfield. Miners have a way of fixing their corporate attention on the subjects which most nearly affect themselves. It is a, . moral defect which we all possess in our various degrees. To judge from all the accounts, the miners of Chesterfield did not turn their attention very closely to such matters as Home Rule or Welsh Disestablishment, which are the preoccupation of politically-minded persons everywhere else. The one subject discussed with excitement was the defiance of the Labour Party by Mr. Barnet Kenyon. Let us look at the election from this point of view.
After Leicester, Chesterfield. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald had his feathers ruffled at the Leicester election, and be resolved to smooth them out at Chesterfield by asserting the full authority of the Labour Party and its shattering papal power of excommunication. Anybody who appre- ciates human—very human—motives will understand why he wanted to do this. At Leicester he was accused of hedging and equivocation and timidity. It was therefore due to himself and the Labour Party that he should show himself to be a strong man and the leader of strong men. We must remember what happened at Leicester, and then we shall appreciate the appropriate sequel at Chesterfield. During the campaign at Leicester Mr. Ramsay MacDonald sat down to tea in the House of Commons with his colleague, Mr. G. H. Roberts, and two representatives of labour from Leicester. After tea Mr. Roberts met Sir Maurice Levy and drew up for him an informal statement 'as to the views of the Labour Party, which was so much to the advantage of the Liberal candidate and. so much to the disadvantage of the Socialist candidate that Sir Maurice Levy telegraphed it bodily to Leicester, where it was read from Liberal plat- forms. After the Liberal candidate had. been returned, those Labour men who were in revolt against the Parlia- mentary Labour Party derided Mr. Ramsay MacDonald for being the subservient agent of the Liberal Party. This, according to the rules, is the most insulting form of detraction which can be directed at a Labour leader. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald denied responsibility for the message sent by Sir Maurice Levy. But he did not explain satis- factorily why he had not repudiated the message clearly or emphatically enough to undo its effect before the polling. The fact is, of- course, that the Labour Party has become, even as its critics say, an appanage of the Liberal Party in the House of Commons. It would be honest to admit this, but the Labour Party does not admit facts which it has once said are not facts. Accordingly the attempt goes on to maintain the fiction that the Labour Party is a, terrible stalwart, always holding a pistol to the head of the Government and calling on them to stand and deliver. Actually the Government have already delivered what is a very strong temptation to the Labour members to remain sitting in their Parliamentary seats—in other words, to keep the Government in office—as long as possible. The Government were the authors of the attractive present of X400 a year as the salary of a member of Parliament. Many Labour members may not even be aware that this sum glues them to their seats. They may sincerely and positively believe that it does not. But when a man's income rises it is the almost invariable rule that his standard of living also rises. When the standard has risen he finds it nearly impossible to beat it down again, and domestic excuses for no unnecessary or premature change in his method of living soon become unconsciously translated into political action.
At Chesterfield Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's part was nevertheless to prove that the Labour Party was not only independent of the Government, but entertained a healthy contempt for them. The candidate of the miners, Mr. Kenyon—a miner for miners—gave him the opportunity he wanted. Mr. Kenyon, knowing that a great number of miners have always voted Liberal, determined to fish in both the Liberal and the Labour pools. He knows what miners want, and he recognizes that they have as much chance of extracting it direct from the Government as through the agency of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Probably a better chance. He did not attempt to please the Parliamentary Labour Party, or, indeed, trouble his head very much about it. He welcomed Liberals on his platform. Altogether, in a manner which we can only sympathize with and admire, he displayed his indifference to the Labour caucus, which is no better or more endur- able than any other kind of caucus. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald—unfortunately for himself and the Labour Party, as it turned out—saw his opening. He demanded explanations, and, not getting them, he launched the following letter at Mr. Kenyon:— " I am very sorry that no fuller explanation of the way in which the contest is being conducted was forthcoming for the executive this morning. I am the very last person in the world to raise unnecessary difficulties, but the reports in the newspapers of your speeches and the knowledge that I have of what has been done at this end made it absolutely impossible for me to do anything but acquiesce in the resolution which the executive passed, not only unanimously, but emphatically, that it could not endorse your candidature. I think it far better under such circumstances if you want to be a Liberal candidate to say so quite honestly. If you are to run as a Labour candidate you must accept certain responsibilities. To try to do both is wrong morally, and, if acquiesced in by the Labour Party would make the continued existence of the party impossible. The communications which, I hear, have been passing between your end and the Liberal Whip ought never to have been made. I was asked, for instance, if I would speak with Mr. 17ra on your behalf. Such a suggestion was so ridiculously absurd that I really wondered if we had been in existence for the last thirteen years and had failed to make people understand what the Labour Party's position is. It is quite true, as you say, that you talked the matter over with Mr. Henderson, and that he, upon receiving certain explanations and pledges from you, agreed to advise the executive to endorse your candidature, but, unless the papers are lying very much more than usual, you have not carried out your pledges and have not observed the conditions which you gave Mr. Henderson to under- stand you would observe. The whole thing has been most unfortunate, and on the back of Hanley will compel the executive of the Labour Party to get an absolutely clear understanding as to what its position is in relation to the candidates of certain of its affiliated organizations. I feel it all the more keenly because I have been endeavouring from the very beginning to get elasticity within the bounds of the Constitution, and it is such actions as yours in Chesterfield that create the circumstances and suspicions which have hampered me in my work all along."
This forcible-feeble communication made no difference to Mr. Kenyon—honest man l He probably thinks be is no more "wrong morally" than the Labour Party itself is "wrong morally" to follow the Liberal Whips at Westminster while clinging to its own distinctive title. As to understanding what the Labour Party's position is at the end of thirteen years, he probably understands it just as well as everybody else does. We all understand that the Labour Party has become the obedient dog of the Government. It may show its teeth as a matter of form, or it may be as a matter of temper, but it will not bite in the House of Commons. It seems that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's letter did no harm at all to Mr. Kenyon. We suspect that it even helped him in the eyes of the miners, who were amused and a little exhilarated by their rebellion against the Labour Party. More serious matters for Mr. Kenyon were the official blessings of Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George. Mr. Lloyd George telegraphed : "Wish Kenyon all luck in his fine fight for the wise policy of making Liberalism and Labour stand together and not apart. Divided they must both fail ; united, they will overthrow privilege, monopoly, and a legion of social and economic evils that oppress the people." This might easily have detached from Mr. Kenyon's side as many Labour men as disbelieve in the promises of Mr. Lloyd George. Whether it did or not we have no means of knowing. Mr. Scurr, the political soldier of fortune who appeared as Socialist candidate, was not accorded the assistance of any repudiation from the Labour Party. What Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's next move will be we cannot conjecture. His experiences have been enough to make any man lose confidence in himself. The incidents of Chesterfield are likely to encourage rebellion against the Labour Party wherever a working- man candidate is put forward. We regret that the election has not helped forward political events, but we are frankly pleased that what is really an essential though unadmitted part of the organized hypocrisy of the Government should have been blown upon, as Mr. Scurr might say.
Previous page
