The Dominion WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1931. MR. COATES OFFERS TO CO-OPERATE

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 187, 6 May 1931, Page 8

The Dominion WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1931. MR. COATES OFFERS TO CO-OPERATE

A week ago the Prime Minister issued his invitation to wipe the political slate clean and start afresh with a National PartyIn the interval his proposition has been given the. careful thought its importance warrants, not only in political circles but by a.I responsible citizens. . .'. . c . Apart from extremists the consensus of opinion is dennitely against the assertion at the present time of party and factional claims and strongly favourable to some form of political co-operation that would enable the country to face its difficulties with an undivided front. To realise that ideal it is recognised that one essential is a Government secured from the political Party .manoeuvres that always threaten and weaken a minority Administration and thus enabled steadfastly to pursue a considered and fixed policy designed to serve the national interest. From any such combination for the commonweal the Labour Party has definitely shut itself out, both by its socialistic objective and its narrow outlook. Mr. Holland and his colleagues cannot or will not see that we are all in* the same boat on a threatening sea and must pull together for our common salvation. He and his henchmen stand wholly and solely for sectional interests, recking little for others and ignoring the fact that the welfare of the part is bound up with that of the whole. Although a National Party including the Labour Party might therefore be the ideal, as Mr. Downie Stewart suggested some time ago, it is impossible of realisation and would prove impracticable and unworkable. For that reason, no doubt, Mr. Forbes addressed his coalition invitation particularly to the Reform Party in order to secure “the strongest possible Government.” The inclusion of the Socialists, as we have seen, is not possible nor would it make for strength. They would be an alien element spoiling any. amalgam. The further question arises’whether the Reform and United elements can combine into a compact and useful Party, as Mr. Forbes suggests, or whether they would serve the country better working in co-operation, as is now proposed by Mr. Coates. . \ . For it must be clearly understood that the objective is not fusion for fusion’s sake but to create a strong and sane government in the national interest. Fusion is the means proposed by Mr. Forbes to reach this end but it may be neither the only means nor the best 'means, though for the moment it appears to have captured the popular imagination. It is quite conceivable that fusion would lead to* confusion unless, as we have previously emphasised,. it were based firmly on principle and not on expediency and temporary convenience. This point is also made by Mr. Coates in his statement issued this morning and it is sufficiently clear that the materials are not present to assemble through a forced fusion of parties a smooth-working administrative machine to provide the efficient executive the times demand. In fact, as Mr. O. P. Lynch remarked at a Farmers’ Union meeting in Palmerston North, “to try to force a coalition would be a mistake.” If wishes were horses, of course, it would be easy. But anyone with any experience of affairs knows that you cannot safely bring a collection of men of mixed opinions together in a room and expect them to become a board of’directors, a committee, a council or a Cabinet that would merely by virtue of their compulsory association work together harmoniously and efficiently More than likely the result would be a pull-devil-pull-baker body that would ruin any business it took in hand and defeat the whole purpose—the initiation and direction of a sound policy. . The diffidence of Mr. Coates and the Reform Party to enter an arrangement that might lead to this state of affairs can be understood. The members of he Party have abundantly demonstrated in the last 2-| years their sense of duty and responsibility and particularly so in the recent short session. Throughout they have placed the national interest first and subordinated faction. They have assisted Mr. Forbes to carry through a difficult task successfully and materially lightened the burden of the Government by invaluable support in a period of heavy stress. It would no doubt be easier and in one sense more profitable for Mr. Coates and his followers to yield to the popular cry for fusion with its immediate offer of office than to present an alternative plan. But it will be conceded that Mr. Coates has not taken the pleasant or easy course. He has resisted the popular cry for fusion and turned his back on the" prospect of immediate office. That is not the gesture of a weak politician, the mark of an opportunist or the decision of a timeserver.

Happily in setting aside the proposal for fusion Mr. Coates does not stop at barren negation. He offers instead a continuance of the. assistance his Party has afforded the Government during the recent emergency.session; he eschews factious opposition and pledges his support of “such measures of economy and finance as the present crisis demands.” That in itself solves the Government’s chief , remaining problem, the. passing of taxation measures to meet the ostensible deficit. But the Reform leader goes still further. Recognising that a minority Government will need help in “safeguarding the interests of the people in'the present period of economic strain,” he offers to provide assistance by “furnishing a small comriiittee of. Reform members to confer with Ministers before legislation is introduced.” This is a new and most important step —a substantial, and disinterested offer to co-operate actively. Such loyal co-operation and help is the real essential to good government under the present alignment of parties in the House. It may well prove to serve the country’s administrative need better than any impulsively conceived and ill-assorted fusion of antipathetic elements. Immediate coalition might prove' unworkable and a positive hindrance; co-operation promises to yield all that is politically needful in the meanwhile.

As for the future, those who, blinding themselves to the practical difficulties, still continue to advocate fusion should note that the collaboration offered by Mr. Coates should bring the parties into closer working contact and open the way to a better mutual understanding. Possibly it might in the end lead to a fusion of forces which would be real and lasting—a fusion based on mutual respect, the recognition of common interests, and honest agreement on principles and policy. Co-operation is a natural preliminary to such a consummation if, in fact as well as in fusion theory, there is real community of interest between the two parties. Proof of that can be left to the event. Meanwhile the immediate need of the country —a secure Government in a position to enact a sound policy—can be guaranteed by the acceptance of Mr. Coates’s offer, a condition that could not confidently be anticipated under an impulsive gamble on fusion. It is nov’ for the Prime Minister to show, by accepting the offer of co-operation, that his real objective is not a party fusion but to serve the country’s welfare.