The Press Monday, June 9, 1924. Mr Wilford as a Critic.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18094, 9 June 1924, Page 8

The Press Monday, June 9, 1924. Mr Wilford as a Critic.

Mr Wilford's speeches in the Auckland district, although hardly of value as contributions to serious political thought, are of considerable interest for their illustration of the diehard Liberal's frame of mind. At Pukekohe the Liberal leader seems to havo devoted himself to the proposition that if Mr Massey remains in office the country will be ruined. It is doubtful whether anyone could believe that, but even if peoplo did believe it, they would smile through their tears at the comical notion that Mr Wilford and his friends could save them. At Auckland Mr Wilford opened with a declaration of policy which we shall deal with on another occasion. It is sufficient to say of it now that its only distinctive features are its provisions for increasing tho public debt and the public expenditure We shall note here some points in Mr Wilford's Auckland speech which show that the Opposition leader imagines that common-sense, accuracy, and coherence are qualities not at all necessary to the advocacy of tho Liberal Party's interests. Like all the other Liberals, Mr Wilford claims for his party and its late leader the glory of having built up a tremendous surplus by 1919. But when poor Mr Massey produces a surplus of one and threequarter millions for 1928-4, Mr Wilford declares that the surplus represents money wrongfully "wrung from" the people. This is not an isolated example of his belief that the public is so wanting in intelligence that it will respect him when he contradicts himself so childishly. For he declared at Auckland that the surplus should be returned by way of reduced taxation; and yet everybody knows that the Liberals have fiercely attacked the reductions in taxation which Mr Massey has made. Nor did he scruple to say that the accumulated surplus of 1910 was earmarked for the extinction of debt, although he knows perfectly well it was not earmarked for anything, and that Sir Joseph Ward proposed that it should be spent in several different ways, including its application to the purchase of soldier settlement land. Yet, irresponsible trifler as he showed himself to be, Mr Wilford did not hesitate to impute fraud, error and lawlessness to Mr Masßey. He obtained some loud applause at Auckland by challenging a statement of Mr Massey's that the capital cost of the railways was 40 and by proving, by a laborious calculation, that it was really 40 millions. Ho. knew, but his Liberal hearers apparently did not, Mr Massey was right, and that,, the 40 millions represent the cost of the unopened lines, both seta of figures being printed regularly in official publications. Again, ho alleged that Mr Massey claimed to have reduced the debt in 1922-23 by £1,324,000< He gave no reference for this statement, but, in order to prove that Mr Massey was wrong, ( he went into a long calculation to show that the amount was £101,061, and that Mr Massey was too ignorant and mendacious tp fool a clever man like the Leader of the Opposition. The admiring laughter would perhaps have been less loud if Mr Wilford had mentioned that Mr Massey had said in last year's Budget: "I«am in the pleasing position "of being able to announce that on "the transactions of the year the debt "has been decreased by £101,061." He also declared that Mr Massey had broken the law in his management of the Advances Department and had doctored figures in the Budget. Of.theßC charges we shall say only that we hope Mr Massey will insist on their being repeated in Parliament. Mr Wilford's retreat and evasion- will be pleasant to see. The truth of the matter is that Mr Wilford talking to a Liberal audience on finance is like a boy of ton who knows a little about electricity explaining the thermionic valve to a boy of six. Far more interesting than Mr Wilford'a faded political tricks was his reference to the party situation. He said there had been talk of tho possibility of an election this J'ear. "That," ho said, "was a matter the "Liberal-Labour Party would settle." Mr he erroneously thinks, cannot obtain a dissolution unless he is unable to carry 6n, and it rests with Mr Wilford whether or not the Government shall be beaten on a division! "If Mr Massey," he said, "brought "down legislation that the Liberal- " Labour Party deemed necessary, including electoral reform, then there "would be no election —the Liberal- " Labour Party would see to that. If "he did not bring down that legislation then the party would see that "there waß an election." People may wonder why, if the Government is as thoroughly bad as Mr Wilford says, he does not at once use his power to turn it out. And, thus wondering, they will have little difficulty in concluding that Mr Wilford's statement was merely a piece of that amusing impudence which has almost endeared him to the Wellington public throughout his political career. With a little wit and a blander

humour Mr Wilford would be a figure whom we could ill spare from the political life of this country. As it is, he is a comedian manque, and a comedian manqud seriously seeking to overturn Mr Massey and take his place is a subject for regret.