POLITICAL PARTIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 155, 3 July 1922, Page 11

POLITICAL PARTIES.

(To the Editor.; " 6ir,—As the potential feather-weight which may turn thfr scale at the forthcoming general election, I am naturally anxjous that my vote should toe given to "the right man." That takes it for granted there will be a "wrong man" looking for a cushy job as 1>1.1 , . for this divjeion. Now, as a regular reader o> your paper, I have noted the sips of omission and of Commission of the Reform party in power at present. And I have noted appeals for the return of the Liberal party to power, with references to Ballance and Seddon in much the same vein as Broadbent in "John Bull's Other Island" uses the name of "the great Mr. Gladstone." If the spirit of Ballan.ce or Seddon is greater than the spirit of Salary and Perke in the tabernacle . of Liberalism to-day, why do not the high priests of the party give Uβ something tangible in the way of rectifying legislation plainly set forth in a party programme? I. may lie dull, but I really can find no JLjberal party in existence. There are opposition members in Parliament, it is true, but whait do they represent? Iβ there a single act of the Reform party which they could honestly promise to amend if they came into power! Are they willing to admit that the dairy farmers of this country are exploiting the native population in the matter of but'ar ibecause the prices of butter ad , ance in London, and are they -/rilling to commit themselves to a policy of ''Justice' at home before profit abroad'? ire the Liberal party prepared to allow firpt-riass German goods to be 'brought to this country and sold at prices whicn have some closer relation to cost and values than the famine-priced; allBritish bunkum that is supposed to toe the test of loyalty and, apparently, ganity in Ijfcw Zealand! Are the Liberal party prenared to expropriate at fair prices the people who are holding up pi-ogress in this country by greedily holding on to land whksh they are unafcie or unwilljng to us* to the beet advantage for the country? Are the Liberal party willing to 'bind themselves to ffovern the country through l"*rlianient and not by Orders-in-Conncil?

What is the use of asking us to vote for Tweedledum when all the time Tweedledee can fool us as well if not better? Now, sir, it seems to mc that the only party in this country with a definitelyvoiced objective is the Labour party. Its programme may be Communistic, Bolshevik, Anarchic, what you will, but there it is, and one does not know ; whether to vote for it or against it. But I venture to cay there is no telling Where one may be landed by voting for either of the so-called great parties. So far as I am concerned, though 1 think some of their proposals frantically rantastie, I shall vote for Labour. The Labour party may not be honest, but it ;is at least candid. Which is more than '•■■• h;> eaid of cither of the other ic-.—l am, etc., CORPORAL TRIM. (Tj the Sir,—-The proposal that Liberal and Labour should try and have »n understanding not to split up the votes that are directed to turn the Massey Government out of office, geems to be fairly in the air. There is no doubt that this is what is wanted, if only to secure proportional representation. Even if Liberal and Labour are enemies, each party retains ita individuality, only working together to secure a just system of election. According to the votes cast at the last election Labour should hold 20 seats, Liberal 26, and Reform 32. In common - fairness, why should not Labour and Liberal have their share of representation? This country never did vote a clear majority tor Maseey. and I don't believe it ever will. An understanding not to split the votes is not a Coalition, and I fail to see what Liberal or Labour can see wrong with it.—l a,m, etc., PRACTICAL WOKKBK.