TRADE UNION NOTES. SEE PAGE 3
OUR OLIGARCHY I. PAGE 3.
-1 Political N otes, —— By F. W. Jowett, M.P. I WHAT DOES LLOYD GEORGE MEAN? What is the meaning of Mr. Lloyd George's sensational speech in Paris? Some people see nothing in it but an attack on the military di- rection of the war and a, declaration to prepare the public for the substitution, in its place, of eontrol of the war by politicians. There is, how- ever, more in the speech than that. There is &Iso in it a preparatory line of defence to safe- guard Mr. Lloyd George himself against poli- tical ruin. He has seen the red light at last. For three and a half years, whilst the slaughter has been in progress he has contemptuously re- Jused to take any opportunity for putting ani end to it. He has gambled again and again on the knock-out blow." He has described peace overtures from the Central Powers as squeal- ing for peace." But, the knock-out blow he has failed to deliver, and, the enemy is as far as ever from "squealing for peace." As for the nation, famine creeps steadily nearer, and disaster is to be feared. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd George must be ready jbo throw the blame elsewhere than on himself, and the main object of the speech, in my opinion, is to pre- pare the way for his coming defence and enable him to say that if only his policy had been adopted the war would not have been a disas- trous failure, but an unqualified success. But the friends of the military mandarins are not going to accept Mr. Lloyd George's con- demnation without hitting back. Already they are pointing out, as they are quite justified in doing, that for all that has happened Mr. Lloyd George himself is more to blame than anybody else. He never thought it necessary to prepare for war on the Continent although he was one of the inner Cabinet circle during the years imme- diately preceding the war. Yet he was fully aware of the policy which led to his country taking part in the war, and he took a leading "pai-fc in -siaping tha tIJfulwy. "For this blind leader of the blind, says the" Globe," to up- braid any man for lack of foresight is indeed a itall order." "Antwerp, the Dardanelles, Salonika and the other wild-cat schemes" are commonly understood to have been advocated by him. How to escape the consequences of his monstrous and disastrous leadership and retain his political reputation is now his chief concern. Personally, I should not be surprised if he and his fellow political gambler, Mr. Churchill, formed a, political partnership, and, as is the custom of rats, left the sinking ship of the Gov- ernment to avoid going down with the wreckage. The ex-Premier, Mr. Asquith, may possibly see in the present situation an opportunity for the fight with Mr. Lloyd George which is ex- pected between the two sooner or later. Mr. Asquith has lost no time in inviting his successor to explain his Paris speech on the floor of the House of Commons. This looks like a challenge. ?: KERENSKY'S MISTAKE. The latest news available at present respecting Russia is that Kerensky has joined hands with Korniloff and Kaledin, and the three are inarch- ing together with armed forces to Petrograd. But whatever else happens in Russia now, no military help for the Allies can be expected from that quarter. Kerensky made a fatal mistake when he tried to drive the Russian Army into taking the offensive. If he had been satisfied to hold the German and Austrian forces he might have avoided much of the internal dissention with which he had to struggle incessantly after the offensive failed, although, the Allied Gov- ernments by declining to state their war aims and refusing passports to enable a Socialist and Labour Conference to meet, would, .even then, have made the position of Kerensky well-nigh impossible. At present it looks as if he had thrown in his lot with the reactionaries. If he has done this we may take it for granted that sooner or later he would have done so in any ease. THE R,3,700 WAR AIMS MEETING. The House of Commons is considering to-day (Tuesday) a vote for financing propa-gianda. meet- ings. The vote is described as a War Aims vote, and the amount to be expended is not stated. It is a token vote which namee a small sum but gives authority for unlimited expenditure. The sum of £ 1,000 is mentioned, but of the numerous meetings already held, one of them, the Albert Hall meeting, has cost over £ 3,700. It is not certain that the amount mentioned will cover the cost' of the Albert Hall meeting, for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has asked for another week to complete the accounts be- fore he will venture to »t<a £ e what the meeting has cost altogether. It appears that political party agontr. and others were induced to attend the Albert Hall meeting by an offer to pay their expenses, and, up to a week ago 1,200 persons had claimed ex- penses amounting to L3,500,-an average of £ 2 18s. 4d. each. The expense of the meeting itself, apart from the paid clique, was. E220. L3,720 for one political meeting! What ifJe total cost of the hundreds of meetings run by the War Aims Committee will amount to we shall have to "wait and see. It is true that for the meetings in the provinces there is no payment for the audience, but the speaker* are paid their expenses, and, as in the case of War Savings and Recruiting meetings-, the scale on which expenses are paid leaves A geod margin in hand for the speakers. if,100,800 A YEAR FOR DENUNCIATION. I I It was stated in the course of debate on the War Aims token vote that the cost of the War Aims campaign is expected to run up to £ 100,000. It was also stated that one official had bean appointed at a salary of P,1,500 a year, another at £1,000 a year and three others at L280,0 a year each. To describe the campaign as a War Aims Campaign is misleading for the War Aims of the Allies are not referred to at the meetings. In fact, the Government has refused to state the War Aims of the Allies to the elected i, eseiita,tives of the people in the House of eKlm-nioiis. The real object of the cam- paign is to denounce pacifists and prevent the growth of public opinion in favour of peace. This was acknowledged by nearly every member who took part in the debate in question, in- cluding Sir Edward Carson. ICLEM EDWARDS' THOUSANDS OF POUNDSI I Mr. Clement Edwards, the Liberal member for East Glamorgan, has informed the House of Commons that he knows that thousands and thousands of pounds have been spent by Paci- fists and Syndicalists in South Wales to get the South Wales miners to vote in favour of a strike against the combing-out proposal. He also stated that scores and scores of active agents have been employed in South Wales by the Pacifist group" who if they were working full time would not have been earning more than £ 3 10s. per week, but who have not been working full time and yet have been spending in treat- ing other people anything from £ 15 to £ 4.0 a week. He is ready, he says, to give the Law Officers of the Crown full particulars of the in- dividuals employed by. the Pacifist group in South Wales and to produce proofs of their ex- penditure. Mr. Edwards may give the information he has promised to the Law Officers of the Crown or he may not; he will do as he pleases about that, but he ought tiobe invited to grive names, and particulars at the next public meeting addressed by him, and if he does not respond to the in- vitation the request should be repeated, subse- quently, at every one of his meetings until he has either proved his statement or has with- drawn it. THE NATIONAL SERVICE BUBBLE. I The National Service Publicity Campaign has also been a profitable seam for exploitation by patriots. Newspapers have done well out of it, The campaign cost over £ 54,000. Of this amount the "Daily Mail" received- C2,680, and other four newspapers received over P,1,000 each. On printing, posters, Jeaflets, etc., nearly C34,000 was expended.. Practically the whole of the ir.oney was wasted, for the, National Scheme is little tnory than a priokgd bubble..Fortunately for the nation, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, who, acting on the instructions of Mr. Lloyd George, blew the bubble—unlike the artful dodger who instructed him—oould not hide his failure by dexterous tongue-wagging, so his own bubble reputation was also pricked at the same time. Mr. Neville Chamberlain has sinoe returned to Birmingham, where he will doubtless continue— as Birmingham itself does in. the reflection of its past democratic record—to bask in the reflected glory of the dead and gone Chamberlain who did, indeed, add lustre to the record of Birming- ham by his municipal activities, more than forty years ago. ftf *4? tfe I MANUFACTURING CURRENCY. I The" onormist the leading financial weekly, in the current issue dated November 10, points out that the Exchequer returns for the previous week showed a total expenditure of 55t millions, against which taxation produced less than nine millions. This left a deficit for that week of 46t millions. To meet this deficit money was raised to the amount of 15 millions by Na- tional War Bonds, and £ 800,000 by Savings Certificates. This amount of about 151 millions, was all that was produced by the efforts of genuine investors. "The rest of the gap was filled up," iks Economist states, by issues of Treasury Bills, and Ways and Means advanoes -th,&t is to say, by the manufacture of cur- rency, with its inevitable tendency to produce inflation and all its attendant evils—and by bor- rowing abroad to the extent of over 12 millions, so increasing the impoverishment of the country which this process necessarily brings with it." If; # And there arc people, who say that prices arel high because wages have increased. In point of faot, the manufacture of currency, so olearlyl explained by the Economist," has more to do with the rise in prices than anything else. Wages, in so far as they have risen, have fol- lowed prices and not determined prices. « A TASK FOR CLEM EDWARDS. The Independent Labour Party publishes a list of subscriptions to each of its special funds, and the only other source of income to the party is the affiliation fees, 11 full list at which is pub- lished in the party's annual balance sheet. This fact does not protest the party from the mali- cious tongues of its enemies, who suggest that the funds of the party are provided by Germany. But when Mr. Bonar Law was asked the other day if he would secure the yearly publication of the investments in, and trustees of, party funds and a list of subscribers to party funds, with a view to putting a. stop to the sale of honours, he declined to asocede to the request. And yet, the traffic i. honours is so notorious that when the (youiimtmd mi foot of, next- column).
Lenin: The Apostle of New Russia. MRS. BOUVIER'S TRIBUTE TO HER FEL- 1 LOW COUNTRYMEN AT MERTHYR. It is unfortunate that on both the last ocoo- sions on which Miss Sylvia Pankhurst has been billed to speak in Merthyr and Aberdare, cir- cumstances have arisen which have rendered the visits impossible; and, so huge gatherings that have been attracted by her name and personal- ity, have had to put up with Mrs. Bouvier as a substitute. On the first occasion it was illness that fastened the keen fighting chief of the Workers' Suffrage Federation from keeping her engagement; on Sunday last it was the suppres- sion of the "Dreadnought" that- prevented her leaving London. To a newspaper worker the cause of her second disappointment is even stronger than the first, and, generally speaking, the audiences, while deeply regretting their op- portunities to renew an acquaintanceship with Sylvia that is as friendly and sincerely admiring as that we accord to Dick Wallhead or any of our lions, admitted the validity of the excuses we had to offer, and settled down to the enjoy- ment of Mrs. Bouyier's quaint English, and searching logic. The audience was1 distinctly sympathetic when Bert Brobyn, from the chair, told us the cause of Miss Sylvia Pankhurst's inability to be pre- sent with us; and it expressed its sympathy when Mrs. Bouvier emphasised the necessity of re- taining the ? voice" of the Workers' Suffrage Federation—the Dreadnou,,ht and detailed the underhand method by which its publication was recently delayed, as told in our columns re- cently. Proceeding to deal with the suNrage question as it has been affected by the Repre- sentation of the People Bill which is expected to be on the Statute Book -by Christmas, she said that she was disappointed that the Labour Leader had welcomed that Bill as a step for- ward in the right direction. If the Workers' Suffrage Federation—with its 28 constituent societies—together with the Labour Movement, and, in particular, the I.L.P. had refused to ac- cept the Speakers' Conference Proposals, out of which this Bill, dealing with only a portion of the things for which die suffragists had fought, had come, she believed we could have won the day, and that now we should have had before Parliament a Bill entirely in the interests of the workers; a Bill which would have done away with all the anomalies of the past, and not do away ivith a few of t h orn, away with a few of them, perpetuate many, and do a great deal of injustice to many classes of men, and particularly to the women; to whom the present bill was not only unjust, but insult- ing a-s well. So far the Workers' Suffrage Federation and the B.S.P. were the only Societies which would have nothing to do with the Representation of the People's Bill. They would be very glad indeed if something hap- pened to prevent it becoming an Act of Parlia- ment. The Russian Position. I Dealing with the present position in Russia, of which country she is a subject, Mrs. Bouvier declared that the reason we were now in the fourth year of the war was because too little sup- port had been offered to the Russian Revolution last March. She was prepared to say that it would be for the salvation of the whole world if the Party which had M. Lenin at its head could maintain its sway, and could get the full- hearted support, not only of those portions of the Russian army and navy that were behind it at the moment, but the full support of the entire army and navy. Those who said that M. Lenin only desired to destroy were' blind to the facts of the cases. It only needed a look at his programme to see how short was their criticism of meeting the facts. The first item on his programme was that peace should be negotiated at once; that all the belligerents should be asked to declare an armistice; and in home affairs he was tackling Russia's greatest problem, that of the land, by claiming that the State lands should be given to the peasants; and that the Soviet should then tackle the economic problems of re- construction. Lenin realis-ed that no revolution was a complete revolution unless it was the social revolution. Lenin was trying to save Russia from the terrible period of Capitalism through which the more advanced nations of the West were passing. The misrepresentation of Lenin in the Press was a deliberate misrepre- sentation because the Capitalist press of Britain did not desire to see the Russian proletariate successful in the revolution. The attitude of the Press was plainly disclosed when Korniloff at the time of his last revolt was marching upon Petrograd. The Press was then hoping in its heart of hearts that Korniloff would succeed in crushing the Revolution, and they shouted from the house-tops that this was a fight for freedom, I for liberty and Democracy.
Labour and Political Power BY L. S. WOOLF. The re-organisation of the Labour Party and last month's great conference at which the Co- operative Movement decided to enter politics shows that Labour realises that politically it is standing at a point where several roads cross. The danger of political cross-roads is that there are never any sign-posts. Now, when a traveller conies to cross-roads with no sign-posts he usually stops for a moment if he is wise, and considers where he wants to get to and which of the several roads is likely to lead in that direction. I suggest that Labour should do the same. The political path which Labour takes in the next twelve months will determine the amount of political power which will fall to Labour during the next ten or perhaps twenty years. Few people will deny that in the past the poli- tical power of Labour has been almost incredibly small. Even since the wage-earning classes won the right to some share in political power through the vote, they have been singularly un- successful in the practical task of using that power effectively. A brewer, a Duke, or a ship- owner really has much less political power than any Trade Union, but in practice they have in- finitely more, because the Trade Union proves a much less efficient political machine than a brainless duke or a wealthy brewer. The failure of Labour is not difficult to discover. Whenever the moment comes when political power has to be used to decide a really vital question, you will find 100 per cent, of the dukes, 100 per cent. of the brewers, and 100 per cent. of the ship- owners working together—among Labour you will find 60 per cent. pulling one way and 40 per cent, pulling another. And it isn't merely a question of interests, it's a question of ideals. The question of the interests of a duke versus the interests of a barrister, a cotton-spinner, or a school-teacher, does not seem to me really as important as the question of the kind of world and country which the Duke and ship-owner wish to exist versus the kind of world and coun- try which Labour wishes to exist. We aren't to- day living in the world or country where the miner or the cotton-spinner wants to exist, we're living in the kind of country and the kind of towns and houses the Duke and the brewer "WiiJit to exist—aii-a "chat is why they are so demm'd uncomfortable" for anyone who hap- pens not to be either a Duke* or a brewer. The reason? Well, the reason is not, I think, very far to seek. It can be found in this morning's paper. Yesterday a well-kknown labour leader was elected a Member of Parliament, standing, as an "Independent" against the Government" candidate. And one of our Capitalist newspapers writes this morning: Mr. to be sure, is hardly to be reckoned as an opponent of the Government. He should be a distinct accession to the House, for he is an able and well-informed man, and his views have broadened a good deal since his Tower Hill days." There you have it. Mr. -'8 views have broadened so that now, politically, he is a supporter of Lord Curzon, and Lord Milner, and Sir Edward Carson: but has any- one ever heard of a Duke, or a mine owner, or a railway director, of whom we could say: 0 yes, his views have broadened a good deal since his Eton, and Oxford days, and he is hardly now to be reckoned an opponent of the views of J. H. Thomas or Bob Smillie." These facts are of enormous importance to- day. Consider for a moment the political situa tion of Labour to-day, and the situation as it will be at the end of the war. To-day the most efficient organisation which exists in the country for bringing the weight of Labour's ideals to bear upon politics is the Labour Party. The foundations of the Labour Party are built upon the Trade Union Movement. Within the Trade Union Movement you will have at the beginning of Peace some 4, 1 million wage-earners. At the same time, owing to the recent decision of thu Co-operators, you will have the Co-operative Movement, with its 3! million mainly wage- earning consumers, starting a Party Chest" and entering politics with a programme whicn hardly differs at all from the political pragramme of the Labour Party or the Unions. In this situation there are elements of great hope, but there are also elements of great danger. Let us look at the dangers first. Your 4- million trade unionists overlap to a great extent your 3iV mil- lion co-operators. It is disunion which in the past has been the greatest obstacle to the use of the political power of Labour, and overlapping j of this kind is always a. fruitful source of dis- union. Now, if Labour is going to exercise its political power effectively, it is essential that it should use both its organisations of consumers (the Co-operative Societies) and its organisa- tions of producers (the Unions) for political pur- poses. We niust, in fact, have both our Trade Unions and our Co-operative Societies in politics, and those politics must be Labour politics. There is perhaps at the moment little danger of the Co-operative Movement pulling one way and the Trade Union Movement pulling another: but if the Co-operators become politically strong that danger will undouDtedly arise, and in any case there is the danger of Labour's forces being frittered away and split up between the two political machines. The first essential is there- fore a close working agreement between these I two Labour Movements. There is a second point. The Trade Union 2 million ard tho C,, o Movement consists of 41" million and the Co- operative Movement consists of 3! million in- dividual men and women. If the Conservatives do not succeed in their present efforts to wreck the Suffrage Bill, nearly all these individuals will be electors. Let us say, at a guess, that the two movements between tlienil" will contain six million electors. The political ideals of these six million individuals are in their main outlines the same Labour ideals, they agree in all impor- tant points as to the kind of country and world which they would like to see existing. If they could be got to work together politically they could easily create that country and world io- mttf?w. In Ae pt? their poli.l "'OW.. kas been broken because they have been distracted and blinded and bamboozled by the old party- lies and ties. Those party lies and ties have not been completely destroyed to-day, but there has never been and there will never recur such an opportunity for utterly and finally destroying them. The old" Lioeral" and Conservative Parties are wobbling, though their machines continue to grind out the same sordid lies; 99 per cent. of the men and women in the country have had their eyes opened temporarily to their sordid incompetence for any real political wis- dom or ideal. But the Party spiders- are only waiting an opportunity for spinning their web again over Labour. If the six million individuals are to be won by the Labour Party, the Trade Unions and the Co-operative Movement for the political support of a Labour programme, it can only be done by a direct and common appeal to the individual, a personal appeal to him or to her to support a programme which really em- bodies the ideals of Labour. This can only be done by adequate organisation from the centre. Let us take the actual case of the Co-operators. The Co-operators have started on a very big job. They will do nothing of importance unless they win the solid support for their political pro- gramme from their rank and file. They cannot do this unless their programme really appeals to their rank and file and unless it is put before them properly. That means that the Co-opera- tive Movement must educate itself politically. It can only be done if the impetus comes from the centre. The Co-operative Union will have im- mediately to start an immense political cam- paign through the societies, helping the ener- getic and pricking on the laggards to win the support of every individual member for Labour's new political programme and at the same time organising the Co-operative vote. This should be done at once, and in close co-operation with the similar activities of the Labour Party and Unions. Otherwise before .we know it, the in- dividual will have fallen back into the old Party spider's web. There is, of course, another danger and diffi- culty. The question of whether the Labour Party should be a labour party pure and simple has generate d muc h or a democratic party has generated much heat lately. The question is only part of the larger question of how to get persons who have the same political ideals to co-operate in their attainment. The Dukes and ship-owners suc- ceed in co-operating, Labour and democrats have hitherto largely failed. I was speaking the other day to a in a Northern town who in the i -I beer, its m est Liberal, and who would certainly have been its next Liberal candidate and Member. He told me that one of the Liberal whips had asked him to become the prospective candidate for a certain constituency. "I refused," he said, "and I told him straight that I didn't know where I stood. I don't know that I am a Liberal any more. If Henderson, for instance, came out with a real strong democratic programme and a de- mocratic party, I should want to be with him." And he added that he believed that if Hender- son did so and coupled it with the demand for a reasonable peace, he would sweep the country. His view seemed to me enlightening, to throw a light upon the hopefulness and the danger of the situation for Labour. The hopefulness comes from the chance which is offered for making the weight of Labour tell politically for the ideals of Labour by co-operating with all who desire the same ideals. The danger, however, is that La- bour will lose itself in some conglomeratioa called a democratic party. It is really the same difficulty as that of get- ting a working understanding between Co-oper- ators and Trade Unions. The fact is that La- bour is so split up into different organisations that it is impossible for it to use its political weight effectively unless it adopts some system of federation. Labour has failed politically mainly because of intolerance within its§lf. Now in nations the cure for this kind of intolerance and disunion is a system of loose federation. La- bour will never pull its weight politically until it devises a system of loose federation for poli- tical purposes between its various organisations. In that loose federation the Trade Unions, the Go-operators, the different Labour parties and Socialist organisations would retain their auto- nomy, and this would safeguard the political ideals of political Labour. It would also make it possible for Labour to sweep the whole coun- try into a democratic programme—an end well worthy of attainment. But it will not be achieved until Labour learns politically to toler- ate difference of opinion within its midst. For I imagine that even Dukes do not always hold the same opinions; but as between Dukes they have learned to be tolerant, and thus use their poli- tical power effectively without disunion.
RHEUMATISM- KIDNEY TROUBLE. Rheumatism is due to uric acid crystals in the joints and muscles, the result of excessive uric acid in the system that the kidneys failed to remove as nature intended, and this acid is to a great extent the cause of backache, lum- bago, sciatica, gout, urinary trouble, stone, gravel and dropsy. The success of Estora Tablets for the treat- ment of rheumatism and other forms of kidney trouble is due to the fact that they restore the kidneys to healthy action, and thereby remove the cause of the trouble, and have cured num- berless cases after the failure of other remedy ? which accounts for them superseding oiit-of-dg^. medicines that are sold at a price beyon but the wealthy. Women frequently suffer from ills, aches, and pains under the impression that they are victims of ailments common to their sex, but more often than not it is due to the kidneys, and in such cases Estora Tablets will set them right! The test is at least worth making, as woman's happi- ness and success in life depends on her health. Estora Tablets fully warrant their description —an honest remedy at an honest price, 1/3 per box of 40 tablets, or six for 6/9. All Chemists or, postage free, from Estora Co., 132, Charing Cross Road, London, W.C. Bargoed and Aberbargoed Agentr- W. PABM WILLIAMS, M.P.S. «
matter was debated in the House of Lords re- cently not a single member of that body ven- tured to deny that honours are sold for the benefit of party funds. Both the Liberal Party and the Tory Party have raised funds by the sale of honours. Mr. Clem Edwards might turn his attention to this matter. WHEN WOULD HE SLEEP? Mr. Richardson, M.P., is Chairman of the Law Appeal Tribunal, and before him came, the other day, a bread baker, aged 37, classified Bl, married, and the father of five children. The Local Tribunal had withdrawn the man's ex- emption because he had declined to drill. The defence was that after working thirteen and fourteen hours a day and travelling two and a half hours daily to and from his work, it was impossible for the man to drill. Mr. Richardson expressed the opinion that the Local Tribunal was quite right in withdrawing the exemption on the ground that there had bean calculated thfiaace of tke condition to drill."