South Yorkshire Times, May 13th, 1944
Labour at Loggerheads
The Labour Party could hardly have chosen a less appropriate time to stage a political squabble. Mr. Bevin and Mr. Bevan having at last clashed heads on an unpleasant rift has developed which is unsettling to the country and damaging to the cause of organised labour.
Though for the time being a compromise seems to have been averted the more obvious consequences of this divergence of view the differences remain. Mr. Bevan’s intransigence will continue to goad his more disciplined party colleagues and a trial of strength is only deferred.
Regulation 1AA, the cause of all the trouble, is the measures adopted by the Government to deal with the growing strike menace which was threatening the country’s war effort at a most critical season. It was a move which the nation as a whole regarded as long overdue, the general view being that the Government’s patience in this matter was more remarkable for its duration than its wisdom.
We are still receiving indignant letters from men serving in the Forces in different parts of the world on the subject of strikes and there is no doubt that the recent stoppage in the coal industry created a wave of bitterness among the serving men such as had not been occasioned by any previous strikes. In seeking to grapple with this problem, the Minister of Labour wanted to have the powers to lay known fermenters of strikes by the heels. Regulation 1AA contains proper protection for trade union interests, and the decision to put it into force was only taken when all other attempts to deal with this question had failed. Despite the fact that certain of the unions are discovering an increasing dislike of this potential sanction against incitement to strike, the Government has public opinion behind it in the matter. After all, the first responsibility of the Government is to the nation as a whole, and not to any sectional interests. Strikes and lock-outs having been ruled out of the field of industrial relations by mutual consent of capital and Labour, the Government had sooner or later to cease turning a blind eye to flagrant preachers of this agreement.
It Is a strange thing that the Labour movement founded on the principle that unity is strength, should betray such inconsistencies as the present squabble has revealed. Mr. Bevan and his recalcitrant party comrades excel at destructive criticism. The Labour heritage of conflict and agitation seems to have such a firm hold upon them that in default of other adversaries they must turn and rend their own people. This same spirit is being manifested among some of the rank and file of the trade unions; a species of civil war most damaging to the credit, as well as the solidarity, of the unions.
British traditions of a subsidised opposition are sound even though they appear paradoxical to the foreigner, but bitter internal strife, such as has flared up in the Labour Party during these last few days is another matter the party must play such a considerable part in post war plumbing that it cannot afford to weaken itself in this fashion on the threshold of a nearer of unparalleled social reconstruction. On the other hand, the party cannot afford not to be master in its own house. There must be a clear understanding about who is to be qualified to speak on Labour’s behalf. However democratic an organisation is there must be leadership, and Labour must make its choice and close its ranks if it wishes to ensure its political future.