The Press Thursday, September 23, 1920. Mr Isitt's Diagnosis.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16947, 23 September 1920, Page 6

The Press Thursday, September 23, 1920. Mr Isitt's Diagnosis.

It was natural that at tho Liberal "rally" at Petone, at which only five members of liia party in the House came to support their leader, allusion should have been made.to tho battered state of the Party. As a general rule, one does not scrutiniso too closely what tho vanquished says concerning the causes of his defeat, and we should not alludo to tho subject now but that some remarks by Mr Isitt, wht> owes his. election to tho Reform voters, go far beyond anything that is permissible in "the after gamo." As reported in tho "New Zealand Times," Mr Isitt raid:-— "The audienco had been reminded that the party was not strong; whose fault was" that? Tho Pftrty was in tho numerical position it was in today because when the call of Empire came and tho Homo Government appealed to it to put country before party it did 'so. Its leading members joined the National Government, and were blamed for what tho Government did. All' they 'could do was to protest, an J they had to tako the responsibility on their shoulders. Tho cost of living hit the working class, and they were yory iangrv, and knocked out tho Liberals to, the benefit of .tho party who were - responsible."

Thero are two ways in which this extraordinary statement may bo considered. "Wo may consider it with reference only to the facts of tho case; that is, we may consider tho substance of it; "VVe may also consider it as a revelation of the real spirit of 3£r Isitt. First, as to the facts. The Liberal members of the National Government had considerable freedom in choosing their portfolios, and it is a fact that they selected the offices which would least expose them to public criticism. The Hon. G. W. Russell was nnfortunato in taking the portfolio of Public Health, but it was pure accident that the epidemic came in 1918. The places in the firing line were occupied by tho Reformers. Mr Massey, of course, received tho shot and /shell of every battery worked by public discontent. Sir James Allen occupied tho most difficult, dangerous, and thankless post of all. Sir William Herries, as Minister of Railways, was exposed to attack' throughout the war. As for the Liberals, Sir Joseph "Ward was Minister of Fin an co, and he was so loyally supported by tho Reformers, and given so freo a hand, that ho was actually able, when he left office, to claim for himself tho credit of tho "accumulated sur"plus." His Liberal colleagues wero far from tho firing lino in comfortable and comparatively insignificant posts. They were, for tho most part, immune from criticism. No doubt they could claim that their sacrifice of party interests to national interests entitled "M. ffiem to shelter. We do not dispute that

claim; biffc we certainly never supposed' that nnV Liberal politician would be so bold as to say that it- was upon them that th<j public discontent chiefly fell. J Nobody blamed any liberal Minister for the sim-of the National Government: the pt/blic's wrath was directed always at thd Prime Minister and Sir James and we feel obliged to say that their Liberal colleagues showed little zeal / n defending them. Mr Isiti know 3 perfectly well that in the middle of 191? t.lio idea currcnt in political circles was that Mr Masscy would be cr'J shed under the weight of public discontent. Ho knows that this idea was t'/.e basis of the Liberals' gleeful annelid ation of victory at the general elccI ion. "Why Mr Isitt should say that 'the Liberals were punished for the sins of the Reformers when ho knows that nobody blamed the Liberals at ail for the faults of the National Government, we cannot 'imagine. So much for the substance of liis statement. The spirit | of it is not more admirable. What are wo to think of a politician who whimpers, with a complete disregard of the facts, that the Liberals were punished bccauso they were so noble as to put country before party—which, as a matter of fact, some of them did not do? And what of the spirit of a Liberal who implies that for any sins of omission or commission on the part of the National Government only one section of that Government —the Reform section —was responsible? Ho could hardly have been expected t-o tell the faithful at Petonc that the Liberal Party's downfall was due to the profound distrust created by the Liberal politicians' attitude regarding Labour, but if he had to give somo explanation of the Party's misfortune he would have been wise had he given one which, in subetanco and spirit, would have been less repugnant to good sense and good feel-