FAIR PLAY FOR LABOUR.
AGOOD many people are talking as though the accession of Labour to power would mean " the end of all things," and as Punch, after considering all the current expressions of fear, has wittily interjected, even that phrase seems " optimistic." But nearly everything is better in the event than in the anticipation ; and in this case we are confident that the spirit of the nation and the resources of the Constitution will be perfectly able to make the situation safe even though very con- siderable danger should threaten. To believe anything else is to underrate the common sense, the staying power and courage of the British people.
The Labour Party stands for Socialism. Be it so ; we are not afraid of Socialism. The great majority of the people do not want it, as the election proved, and we know that if they had a taste of it they would want it even less. Laliour, if it comes into office, as is generally expected, will do so under conditions in which it will do the minimum of harm. It will have a constable on either side of it, and if it makes mischief these con- stables will combine to carry out their plain duty of keeping the riotous person in order. What we are chiefly afraid of is that the experiment of a Labour Government, manned by Ministers intoxicated with heady visions and untouched by the sobering influence of . administrative experience, may cause such anxiety and uncertainty—indeed, such a general slump. in confidence—that much harm will be done to our trade. Trade notoriously depends for prosperity upon being able to count upon a stable position of affairs at a reasonable distance ahead. Merely to state this fact, however, is to show how ridiculous and injurious unneces- sary alarm is. Confidence is a psychological state. To declare as a certainty that confidence will be destroyed is to begin here and now to undermine it. The late Lord .Salisbury used to say that there was always a way through the mountains. That was one of the truest things ever said by a brain that was extraordinarily apt to light upon the truth. The barrier that seems to reach to the sky and to present an impenetrable mass when viewed from a distance is found to be " negotiable '' when your feet are already on the lower slopes. If distance lends enchantment to the view it also lends a feverish estimate of all the .possible dangers. The athlete or player of games when actually engaged .in the race or the game knows nothing of that "needle " which beforeharid had made his heart feel as though it dwelt in the pit of his stomach. He runs or plays to win, by fair means and not by foul, by superior training, by skill, judgment or pluck. No battle is lost till it is over. In real battles no soldier yields to despair while he is still fighting. In the South African War in 1899 Sir Redvers Buller's army even after successive reverses was in high spirits ; it was well fed and well cared for and had plenty of energy and liking for games and sports in spare time. It was partly with incredulity and partly with amusement that the men of that Army read in the newspapers which came out from England, that while they themselves had been so little concerned after the. defeat of Colenso, London, greatly over-esti- mating the seriousness of both Colenso and Magersfontein, had passed through what was called a " Black Week " never to be forgotten.
And as in the case of mountains and battles, so in politics. The present writer happened to be in New Zealand when the first Socialist Prime Minister was in office. It had been the common belief, or, at all events, the common saying, among those who had anything to lose that it was " all up." New Zealand was ruined. The good times were at an end. Henceforth there could be nothing but a decline. What really happened, however, was that Mr. Seddon was noticeably less dangerous in office than he had been on the platform. As Prime Minister, with the whole responsibility on his shoulders, he was made aware of his responsibility as he had never been, either as a private Member or even as Head of a Department. He came up against the profound knowledge and devastating logic of the Permanent Official—a terrible and salutary experience for any visionary. After all, no man who is not a criminal or a lunatic wants to earn the reputation of having ruined his country. In many Labour leaders, who (greatly to their credit) have raised themselves by their own brains or merit, there is a strain of self- esteem.which would make such a reputation particularly disagreeable. At all events, the prosperity of New Zealand, in spite of Mr. Seddon, continued to grow.
Years afterwards the present writer met some of those landowners and sheep-farmers who had prophesied woe and was gratified to discover that some of them who had been poor had become rich, and some of them who had been rich had become richer. Of course, it would be wrong to draw any strict parallel between New Zealand and this country. When Socialism took hold of New Zealand that country still had a vast margin of untapped resources. It could afford to carry unwise economic laws in a way that would certainly not be possible here. Nevertheless, we arc sure of the value of the experience of New Zealand as an illustration. She has emerged from her salad days, and having been inoculated with the virus of Socialism, she is probably safer from mere economic madness than most countries in the world.
When, therefore, the Labour Party demand fair play we can say with our hand on our heart that they certainly must receive it. They must obviously be given exactly the same opportunities that would have fallen to His Majesty's Opposition in the old days of the two-party system. It would be both stupid and disastrous to play any tricks upon Labour which were merely inspired by panic. But to say this is not to say that Labour must be given a position of privilege —and we fear that that is what most repre- sentatives of Labour are demanding. Great Britain is a democracy and a democracy means that the will of the greatest number must prevail. It passes our under- standing how Labour leaders who call themselves demo- crats can pretend that somehow in their case democracy will be honoured and served by trying to make the will of a minority prevail. This is not democracy but Direct Ac'. Ion.
We shcli not go into the merits and defects of democracy as a method of Government. At all events, we have got it, and no constitutionalist who is an honest man can make rules for one party that do not apply to all. Those who regard democracy as a bad method must at least 1( cognize the danger of trying to keep in outer political darkness those whom the State educates by compulsion. For our part we take a much higher view of democracy than that and look upon the training of every citizen in the ways and responsibilities of political life as a good thing in itself. But here we have Mr. Ramsay MacDonald actually contending that the larger part of the voters may be deprived of their rights of decision—for that is what it comes to if a Labour Government, though representing a minority, can keep themselves in power by threats of dissolution. The Labour argument is—see the letter from the editor of the Daily Herald which we publish this week—that a Prime Minister always has a right to demand a dissolu- tion and that the King must grant it.
Under the Constitution the decision as to a dissolution rests with the Sovereign, who must inform himself before granting a dissolution that there is a reasonable prospect of carrying on the Government of the country without it. When a Prime Minister with a majority behind him demands a dissolution there is, as a rule, no such reasonable prospect, for any new Government that was formed could instantly be voted out of office.
That is why the request of a Prime Minister was so usually granted that it seemed to have become an automatic rule to grant it. Yet there is an obvious limit to that rule. If there were not, Mr. Baldwin, immediately upon being defeated in the House of Commons, could go to the King, demand a dissolution, and try his luck with a new programme at another General Election ! What would the editor of the Daily Herald say to that ? Our own horror would not be in the same street with his. We are sure that he will see on reflection that his argument is without foundation. He has invited us to put our card on the table and we have done so. It is the democratic card. The matter is simple enough. Since the majority rules, the House of Commons controls the whole situation. The King must shape his action according to the declared will of the majority in the Commons. If a Prime Minister representing a minority claimed a dissolution, the majority of the House would no doubt present a humble petition to the King, asking him not to allow a dis- solution until he had ascertained that there was " no person able and willing to carry on the Government with the support of a majority of the Members of this House." That is fair play, because it is democracy. We sincerely hope that Labour will always receive this fair play, which is all that we demand for our own party.
Previous page
