Editorial: Tillett and Dublin
Tillett and Dublin.
The “Daily Herald” has been left in the charge of Ben Tillett whilst George Lansbury has gone to the States (hunting for fresh finance, no doubt), and the paper has been full of denunciation of the trade union leaders. Ben Tillett, true to his reputation, has played two parts. One in the “Herald,” of Suffragettism and Sabotage, and another at the Conference of Labour leaders on Dublin. Sitting alongside the other misleaders of Labour he moved:
“That this Conference deplores and condemns the unfair attacks made by men inside the Trade Union movement upon British Trade Union officials; it affirms its confidence in those officials who have been so unjustly assailed and its belief in their ability to negotiate an honourable settlement if assured of the effective support of all who are concerned in the Dublin dispute.”
Some of the rebels (!) are murmuring : “One damned leader in place of another!”
The painting trade is rather slack just now, otherwise Ben might have been in great demand as a whitewasher — look at the experience he has, had. Ask Bottomley.
Birds of a Feather.
Whilst Ben was defending Havelock Wilson, J. E Williams and others, some of whom Larkin accuses of “foul” and black conspiracy, it may be recalled that he is quite willing to sit with them as one of the governors of Ruskin College. Since Ben became one of the bosses, “Justice.” (of Ben’s party) has been silent about that organisation. Some day, no doubt, the “rebel” readers of the “Daily Herald” will realise how they were duped.
When the Omnibus trusts slaves were betrayed was it because of the advertising contract with the paper? Did the large advertising bill of Lipton’s overweight margarine cause the editor to practically ignore the supplying of rotten food for consumption by East End children? The paper just mentioned the fine.
Once upon a time the “Herald” bitterly attacked the Prudential. but shortly afterwards a four column advertisement appeared. Now that there is great unrest amongst the Prudential’s slaves no mention of it is made in this “Labour” paper. Can Ben explain?
Socialist (!) Unity.
The International Socialist Bureau has convened meetings for the purpose of uniting the Independent Labour Party and the British Socialist Party. For our part we cannot see why they should not unite. Two parties composed of such similar anti Socialist elements should have linked up long ere this. Mr. H. M. Hyndman and Mr. Robert Blatchford will undoubtedly find many supporters for their “large Navy” proposals among the ranks of the Labour leaders. The condition of unity is that the B.S.P. shall join the Labour Party. That would be a very good thing from our point of view, for it would totally destroy the last tottering claim of the former organisation to be a Socialist body. The way would then be clearer for us of the Socialist Party, and therefore clearer and easier for the working class to follow to their historic goal — Socialism. ‘
The B.S.P’s advice to the workers to vote Tory has now been officially adopted by the I.LP , and Mr. Keir Hardie gloats over the help the Linlithgow branch recently afforded to the Tory candidate. This is sufficient for the day, of course, and no doubt when the Labour Party has scooped the B.S.P., and as the time for a General election draws nearer, the Liberal dog will rehabilitate itself in the estimation of its unified tail, even unto that most recalcitrant hair, H.M.H. provided, of course, that his services to the cause of anti-Socialist unity are properly rewarded by adoption for a safe Liberal constituency.
The Landlord’s Paradise.
The sale of the Covent Garden estate by the Duke of Bedford for several million pounds to the well-known financial magnate and Tory M.P., Mr. Mallaby Deeley, disposes of all the Liberals’ claims as to bringing the land back to the people. So harmless are Lloyd George’s taxes, and so empty his vote-catching vapourings, that this astute financial prince laughs at the very idea of the danger to property, and calmly ventures millions upon its stability—a safe enough guide for anybody.
But besides showing the utter fraud of the Liberal Land Campaign in a peculiarly convincing manner, the stupendous transaction is interesting for that it records the passing of the aristocratic property-owner as each, and the rising of the commercial king.