The Dominion. FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1908. MR. MILLAR ON "THE PARTY."

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 91, 10 January 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JANUARY 10, 1908. MR. MILLAR ON "THE PARTY."

.Those who know Mr. Miliar; may find it difficult to believe that his strikingly earnest appeal for solidarity in the Liberal party is sufficiently explained by the anxiety which the activ-

ily of the Labour bodies is causing linn. He knows—no one better—that in the present state of public opinion an Independent .Labour party of any serious strength will not be returned to Parliament at the General Election. The detachment of the out-and-out Labour vote from the official Ministerial candidates will probably impair the efficiency of the party machine,' and as a prudent politician Mr. Millar had to give due weight to .this consideration. At the same time his warning' must not be taken as addressed to Labour alone. The Government cannot but be conscious that, if it lias not gone so far or so fast in rewarding Labour for its support as Labour would like, it has equally gone a good deal further than another section of the party approves. ■ This party must consider itself " warned" as well as Labour. Even before Mr. Seddon's death the Government had come within sight of the time when it would have to , choose between ■ moderate Liberalism and undisguised Socialism. The removal of the strong personality that kept the' discordant elements of the party together has made the problem a rather grave one for Ministers. The influence of the past ten years' administration will not have disappeared by December next, and the Government will no doubt endeavour to use successfully the tactics of the old regime. That, however, will only mean a postponement of the inevitable " stock-taking."

The present Ministerial party can be divided, like " all Gaul," into three parts. Upon one wing is the Socialist group, chafing a little because the pace is a little slow, but content for the time to hold a large share of the substance of power while others enjoy the emoluments of office. On the -other wing is the body of moderate Liberals, filled with dislike for the Government's Socialistic inclinations, but glad to support whatever is really Liberal in the Government's programme. Between them—it is idle to blink the fact —lies a party which has 110 real convictions, and which will approve beforehand anything that the Government may propose. A time must, come when this conflicting set of opinions can no longer find a common party home. It is no use for the Government to-say, as Mr. Millar said, that "if a. candidate who was not selected as a representative of the party [i.e., the Ministerial party] came forward, it would be in his own interests and not that of the party." A Government which depends for existence on two such discordant elements as the Country party and the Socialist wing cannot make such a contention and escape suspicion of insincerity. Can it be

contended that a freeholder, for instance, will act disloyally, or in a selfseeking spirit, if he refuses Ministerial nomination, and, as a Liberal, stands for that land policy to further which one half of the Government party were elected?

That Mr. Millar himself feels that there must be a " stock-taking," a necessary preliminary of which is the statement of. a fundamental working basis, is clear from his enunciation of the principle that he stands for " equality of opportunity." Nobody can possibly object to the general principle advanced by the Minister for Labour that, equality of opportunity having been ensui-ed, 1 the rest should be left to the individual. But when has " equality of opportunity" not existed in New Zealand? Mr. Millar, himself, Sir Joseph Ward and Mr. Seddon and so many others,'whose abilities have carried them to the top, are living proofs that " equality of opportunity" was provided for years before the Liberals came into power. What the Government'is trying to do, blindly or with intent, is actually to nullify tho working out of the principle'. If there had beeu any doubt upon this point Mr. .Millar dispelled it—and incidentally stultified his previous ' statement—'when he' said >'the Government wanted to make the (lis- 1 tribution of wealth' " as equal. iia pos- " Equality of opportunity," left to itself, never has produced,-and never will produce, equality of wealth, any more than it will produce equality of intellect. Yet' Mr. Millar, determined to produce " as equal as possi ble " a distribution of Wealth, actually claims that the Government stands for

"equality of opportunity," unhampered by any restriction ujibn the individual's freedom to_ use his" ability and application to raise himself to the highest position"!; If the Government desires to consolidate the mutually antagonistic sections of Liberalism, it is adopting a curious method in laying down such conflicting principles as announced by Mr. Millar in his Auckland speech. . .■■.; 1 \