Socialism and 'Liberalism."

Press, Volume L, Issue 14917, 16 March 1914, Page 6

Socialism and 'Liberalism."

On "Wednesday of last week we printed two communications from our London, correspondent, which,! together, made an interesting contribution to-current political discussion in this country. The first was a brief summary of Mr Downie Stewart's preface to Dr. Andre Siegfried's book on "Demo-1 " cracy in New Zealand" (now for the first time translated into English); and the second was a report of the proceedings at the "New Zealand night" of the League of Empire Club in London. In the speeches at the Club's meeting there is much that is interesting and sug£->stivei but we wish to note here only Dr. W. Chappie's observation that "no responsible statesman [in New " Zealand] ever propounded Socialism "as part of his political creed." Dr. Chappie has not kept very closely in touch with New Zealand politics, or has forgotten a good deal, when he can say that. Sir J. G. Findlay, on one occasion, definitely stated that he could be considered a Socialist. And more lately, Mr G. W. Russell, who. for the purposes of the occasion, and for the entertainment of the public, may be called a responsible statesman —or, at anj rate, a responsible "Liberal" statesman —has declared himself a State Socialist. It must also be remembered that the two chief Opposition newspapers, speaking for the ''Liberal" Party and the "Liberal" leaders, have declared in the most positive way, on Sir J. G. "Ward's behalf, the one, that "Lib-

"'crals , ' must support nine-tenths of the extreme Socialist policy and programme of the Federation of Labour, and the other, that the objective of thn ""Liberals" and the objective of the Federation are one and the same. Wβ are prepared to believe, of course, that privately the Opposition politicians would rather not steer this country towards Socialism, but they are in this position, that they are willing to embrace, any doctrine whatever, and join any party whatever, regardless of direction or consequences, if they can only get rid of Reform and clean democratic politics.

"Wβ mention I>r. Siegfried's book because there is in it a passage which has a direct bearing upon the present plight of the "Liberals"—their readiness to assist rank Socialism and their lack of any policy. Dt. Siegfried reports a conversation which ho had with Mr W. P. Reeves, in the course of which Mr Reeves denied that he was a doctrinaire — "jamais je n*ai fait uno "chose pour le simple plaisir d'appli- " quer un principe"—and went on to say in effect, that tho public does not want grand, vague doctrines, but deeds. We may thus translate his observations upon this point.: "In New Zealand, we '" have done with the day of imposing ,; phrases; what the electors want is " performances, and what they con- " stantly demand of us is "what we shall " do for them," with italic emphasis on the "do." Tho electors have not, in this respect, changed much since Dr. Siegfried talked with Mr Reeves, but one would suppose, from the speeches of the anti-Re-

form M.P.'s, that they are quite willing to accept large vague promises of largo vague benefits. There is the less excuse for our '"Liberal" friends in this matter, in that, if the electors thought more of words than of facts, they would not in 1911 have treated with such cold and emphatic disdain tho throbbing manifesto of Sir J. G. Ward. There are no facts in the Opposition's indictment of tbo Government, and no facts, nothing solid and tangible, in such promises for the future ac the "Liberal" politicians are scattering abroad while their leader is hunting for a policy.