WHERE LABOUR STANDS OR two years leaders of the Labour
Party have been among the most active members of Mr. Churchill's National Govern- t, and the rank and file behind them have given loyal support. the annual conference held this week delegates resolved by an helming majority to continue the policy of co-operation with Lew to achieving total victory over the enemy. It has been urce of great strength to this country that at no time during war has any considerable section of people had the least doubt t the necessity of challenging and crushing Hitlerism, and all other objects second to that supreme aim. It has been small part of Mr. Churchill's personal service that he has made sy for men of all parties to work together under his leadership. rience has not weakened this spirit of goodwill. The Labour ty, as this year's President, Mr. W. H. Green, pointed out, has lost its identity, and has not hesitated to offer constructive and dly criticism. But it is as convinced now as it was .two s ago that national unity is essential to the war effort, and that ry measure proposed for immediate adoption should be coa- ted in the light of its contribution to victory. Nevertheless narrowness of the majority—I,275,000 against 1,209,000— Wednesday against a resolution to refer back for further con- ation the endorsement of political co-operation at by-elections s how large the restive element is.
o keep the united front unbroken has needed, and will need, rtain amount of give and take. But if it had meant a merely twe attitude to a multitude of problems—merely refraining action in order not to offend other parties—it would not have ceded so well as it has done. The war experience has shown the practice of working together under the imperative of a le purpose has produced an astonishing amount of agreement, , indeed, the differences of opinion That have arisen have by means always been along party lines. The universal desire to re equality of sacrifice, and to promote the welfare of service- and industrial workers, has made it comparatively easy for the sentatives of labour to fall into line with the rest of the com- ity. None the less, moments were sure to arise when some controversy that has never been disposed of would be in danger being fanned into flame through some emergency or some proposed for dealing with it. Such a situation has arisen regard to coaL No one would expect it to be forgotten that the -standing grievances of the miners have never been redressed, that the long-overdue reorganisation of the coal industry has er been effected—matters in regard to which the Labour Party profound convictions and a settled policy. Strict observa- of the party truce seemed to require that no immediate change the organisation of the industry should be proposed, and it is 10 the Labour Party to recall that until proposals for dealing the shortage of• coal by rationing were followed by proposals reorganisation of production, they refrained from putting up Party scheme or anything like it ; and, indeed, even now, the scheme adopted by the Party conference, they refrain from nationalisation, and are content to offer a compromise y to be acceptable to the mine-owners. The proposal is that Industry should be brought under a Coal Board composed of sentatives of the Government, the Mineowners and the Mine- ers, with regional boards for each district, and pit committees each pit. There are no disinterested students of the coal industry who not agree that a large-scale reorganisation will be essential after war if its prosperity is to be restored. There are few, on the hand, who would not agree that a scheme adequate to the s cannot be carried out under the conditions of war. Such e would not only have to provide for amalgamations and unification, but for the economic use of coal by relating it to electric power and the making of liquid fuel. Nothing ought to be undertaken now which would prejudice the larger scheme of the future. But on closer study the compromise plan put forward by Labour does appear to prejudice the adoption of any other great scheme, including their own scheme of nationalisation. It would tend to give a monopolistic control of the industry—one on which the whole community depends—to those engaged in the industry itself, with insufficient regard for the interest of consumers or of future policy in regard to exports. Nor should it be forgotten that the governing condition today is exactly opposite to the con- dition that should govern the industry in the future. Today the emphasis must be laid on the restriction of all consumption of coal except by the war industries, whereas in the future the emphasis must be on expansion of consumption and widening of markets. Such considerations militate against the adoption of long-term reforms now, and especially against changes towards a monopolistic form of organisation controlled mainly by and for the producers.
These are reasons why Labour must be asked not to press its particular scheme now, and to be content with some lesser measures for increasing output, probably through regional control ; though it would be well that the Government should say to Labour, as it has said to the people of India, that it appreciates and intends to redress its grievances ; and should promise that so far as is in its power, it will put reorganisation of the coal industry among the first measures of post-war reform. Probably the best means of satisfying the needs of all concerned—the mineworkers, the mineowners, and the coal consumers—would be by the creation of a great national utility corporation like the Central Electricity Board or the Port of London Authority, and the setting up of a Royal Commission to relate its activities to power and transport. A makeshift scheme for today should not be one that will later on make the larger remedy more difficult of attainment.
It is natural that the Labour Party Conference should be anxious about a matter of such vital importance to the miners. But the great majority of the members are in no aggressive mood. They put the winning of the war first. That they recognise to be the condition of everything else that they desire to win in the peace. But no group of persons, whether it be a political party or any other organisation, can afford to neglect the issues that will arise after the war ; for the speedy attainment of the civilisation that we desire will depend in no small measure on preparations made now. The Labour Party is under the obliga- tions of the party truce, and accepts them ; but that is no reason why it should not formulate its peace aims. Indeed, it is desirable that every party should give some outline of its future programme, if only because measures could be taken jointly now in pre- paration of schemes that all could support. There is much in the document prepared by the Executive Committee, " The Old World and the New Society," that could be accepted by members of any party. There will be little disagreement concerning the need for generous provision for workers and their families, for the raising of the school-leaving age, for health and nutrition services, for housing and rehousing ; and nearly all economists recognise the need for a scientific planned national economy and a planned international economy. If Labour puts the emphasis on the rapid socialisation of the main instruments of production and distribution, while others think that there is still a wide field open to private enterprise, there is enough common ground to give work for a national programme of reconstruction to last the country for years. The party truce is not incompatible with party plans and pre- parations, and a reasonable degree of advocacy. With the lapse of time and the quickness of change, the war period is witnessing changes so drastic that at the end we must in any case emerge a different nation from what we were in 1939. There are changes whose results some will desire to perpetuate ; and there are processes which in war-time it is tempting to direct towards a pre- conceived goal. A political party cannot be indifferent to these processes and changes, and will inevitably use its influence to shape them. But that is only to say that it is alive and healthy, and cannot deny its own organic nature. Mr. Harold Laski went beyond the somewhat academic terms of the resolution he was moving when he demanded nationalisation by the Government of the essential instruments of production before the war en To press for the whole programme of Socialism now w certainly be to exceed the spirit of the party truce and des the National Government. But the Labour Party is entitled urge that the controls which have been imposed in war sho not be hurriedly or lightly scrapped on its termination. It Ca be expected to relinquish gains it has already made appare with the full approval of the country. If it endeavours to m tam innovations favourable to its ideals it should not be char with breaking the party truce so long as it is resolved, co-operation with other parties, to make the winning of the its supreme objective.
Previous page
