The Opposition Policy.

Clutha Leader, Volume II, Issue 73, 2 December 1875, Page 3

The Opposition Policy.

„It is . thrown „in .thei,, £e gth , ,c>f , J;he Opposition that it has no policy, that.it never had a policy, and' that it never will have a policy, This theory may turn out to be triie, or it may not. If the Opposition '■ remain in 7 opposition, then they are. not likely to have. a, policy —any more then .they ca* ' be said to have one now. y The; word- policy is here used in a certain sense. It is meant: to apply to ascheme of Gpyernment complete in its 'details, 'comprehensive and well considered. A general policy that , Opposition have agreed upon. It is incorrect to say that mere hostility to the Ministry is their bond of union. Theyden ounce the Govern, ment meausres on account bf their Centralist . tendencies. ~ The - broad distinction between the Government and- their adversaries, is ; the difference between Centralism, and its reverse. The Government policy, as' it was ; originally embodied in the Abolition ; Bill, was a policy of pure Centralism, j The Local Government Bill could hardly : be called a provision^ for Government I of any kind^. It wgi^ ! much more a : sheeme for doing the ordinary work of Boad Boards, With provisions lor the management of loans that could never .j be raised. This bill in no way relieved the durkness of tlis Centralism {which was the chief characteristic of the Abolition Bill. It was the Opposition which forced from the framers of the j Bill the very concesions which made it less centralising in its tendency. To twit this Opposition with having had! no policy Lout the sentiment of* hostility; to the Government is ungracious. To; say that this Opposition has no general poliejy is far fronr correct • No Opposition can well be expected to have more than a general line of policy. An opposition has quite enough to do deal with tho measures of the Government of the day. It has rib time for maturing schemes, even.- if it could make sure of getting them considered when mature. When the Government are defeated, and resign, then comes the moment for the Opposition to unfold their policy. If they, have ono, they publish it, and live j if they have none, they cannot speak of it, and they die, richly deserving their inglorious fate. To argue that because an Opposition has done i^s duty of fijjli' ing the Government, that Opposi-: tion will never have a policy of its own, is arguing against the history of Constitutional Government. Neither h it more in accordance with reason to infer from the reticence of an Opposition that it* can have nothing to say. That reticence is the ordinary condition bf an Opposition, and as such is a bad foundation for any strictures. In short, it is not the business of the Opposition to have a detailed programme, and they have not got one inconsequence., The Government have not a detailed programme either, nor have they any excuse at ali to offer for its absence. It is said that though sketchy the design of the Government is clear j and that there is evidence in it to show in which direction the Government are looking, and material enough in ; it from which to make up a good Constitution. The latter is somewhat vague argument. A dictionary contains material enough for any good /Constitution. It is not shown wherein the Government plan differs from that useful book of reference. The other arguments are filled out a little better. Ths Govern-; ment is contented, intend to abolish, after which they propose to reconstruct by means of Shire Councils, or local bodies of some kind; such are promised; in the Abolition Act. The sentence in the Prorogation Speech about Municipal 1 laws and the Consolidation of Provincial Acts, which help to show in which direction the Government is looking, might have been added. The first thing' to observe about it all is that it is charmingly vague. The utterances of individual Oppositionists about the modified form of Provincialism are really quite as intelligible, though not put forth with the same solemnity as these are. The second objection is that besides being vague, the greater por-. tion of the scheme is a promise. The Country has. had enough of this Govvernment's promises to r last it for a generatioriA A definite scheme is better than ali the. -promises.. Besides, should House' pledged to Centralism be returned, the effect' vyill be .that the Government may do7pretty \vell as it chooses. The - behaviour of the Assembly in the past. shows that, when members have five years before them^ the Government influence, oyer them is not lessened by the circuxn stance, There is another point where ; the ,Goy4 ernment are supposed to enjoy a great advantage over the Opposition. How,'| it is asked, do the Opposition propose ( to "fprovideforthe impecu7ni6us ~ Bro-r vinces?" It has never yet occurred Ato ns that the Government have had any brilliant success in this direction^ 'If* the Opposition deal no better than -[ the Government vjith .this particular difficulty, it can not be against them any more thim it can be agaiiist their opponents. As the argument cuts both ! ways, it is : unfortunate. . r ...- r; --J

Considering these things; -we cannot see": why ri'the-. electors ; shquldjcall upon the Opposition Afor.. ii. .definite policyl The difference between the,, twq f parties is |>road; enpugh,7 and , well j7marfied enough^ to satisfy. the imost ; exactingly doubtful of Voters^ * Canterbury Times.' ; y ' I