Page:James Ramsay MacDonald - Socialism To-day (1909).djvu/9

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

ment. Mr. Watson was the leader of the Party second in numerical strength. Mr. Deakin, having pledged himself to work with the Labour Party on certain matters regarding Protection in Australia, was kept in office by them, and allowed to do other work by their support. The Labour Party was not directly responsible for anything, and yet: it kept the Government in office. The South Australian arrangement is that Mr. Price has left the Labour Party, temporarily, with the other members of the Party included in his Ministry. He has done this with the permission of the Party. The Party now meets without him, considers its policy in relation to his, communicates directly with him, and will oppose him whenever it thinks fit. Should he resign office, he would go back into the Party because the arrangement is one of the most complete friendliness, and the situation is candidly accepted by the Party itself.

At Amsterdam, when this question was being discussed in connection with Jaurès and the French Parliamentary bloc, Kautsky stated that at times of national crisis, as, for instance, during a war, Socialists might have to co-operate with a Government, in order to secure national safety. This situation may never arise, but the question will arise: Is national safety only jeopardised in times of war? If not, Kautsky's admission must affect Socialist policy even when there is no war. Then, what is national safety?

The situation I have in mind will meet us sooner or later. It may come immediately after the next General Election, and if we have not given some thought to it before it arises as a practical question to be faced during a crisis, we will fare badly. Then, the temptations of the platform to keep you cheering will overcome the influences to keep you thinking. Only evil awaits the Party whose declared principles of action do not correspond to the practical work which its Parliamentary representatives have to do.[1]

The House of Commons.

But even before we have decided this most intricate question, we shall have been forced to define our attitude to the House of Commons itself. How are we to regard the House of Commons? I sometimes receive resolutions beginning in this way: "Seeing that the Unemployed are of more importance than the rules of the House of Commons"—you know the rest. If I said that I see nothing of the kind, I would of course be misunderstood. So I shall put it in

  1. ↑ See Appendix.
This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.