Untitled

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17629, 5 December 1922, Page 6

In his Hastings speech last week the Leader of the Opposition indulged in a little flag-waving, asserting that the Union Jack was good enough for his Party. He did not agree with the land policy- and socialisation of production, distribution and) exchange of the extreme Labour Party. "He would have nothing to do with them." Thereupon "A voico," evidently belonging to someone with a memory, interjected, "You tried to do it." "I did not," retorted Mr Wilford, and left it at that. In Christehurch, it may be remembered, he declared emphatically that there would never be an arrangement between the Holland Party and himself, a- statement which nobody can accept in view of other statements mad© by Mr Wilford in the House some months

For on July 19th. following- a statement l>y Mr Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, Mr "Wilford admitted that though the Liberal Party had never been in favour of an arrangement with the Labour Party (to prevent vote-splitting between the two parties at the elections), he, himself, had heen, and he believed in it still. "I believe in an arrangement to prevent irotesplitting," ho concluded, "and I hope it will come off, in spite of anything that has happened." This may agree ih Mr WilforiiL's nmiil with his assertion at Blastings that he had not tried to have "jmything to do with them" (the Labour Party), but most people will find same difficulty in making the two statements fit in with each oth6r. Mr Holland, for his part, does not mince matters. He is not concerned, at least not now, about having aay «ort of understanding with the Literals, with almost brutal frankness he told the Liberal Party, in his Weetport speech, where it would stand if Labour got .1 chance. "The Liberals could nerver tako office," he said, "without Labour's consent, and in the event of Labour holding the balance of power in a three-party Parliament, they could only attain office while they obeyed the Labour Party. Labour would vote Mr Massey out at the first opportunity; but, if Mr Wilford came in, LabouT would also rote him out on the first occasion that he refused Labour's de-

mauds." Possibly in tLii candid statement of the case lies the reason for

.Mr Wilford's .present disapproval of coquetting with Labour.