“National Party” Proposal

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 188, 7 May 1931, Page 7

“National Party” Proposal

Sir, —Mr. Coates is to be commended for the thoughtful,' temperate and periotic tone of his reply to the proposal, made by Sir. Forbes, for the disbanding,of the Reform and United Parties, with a view to a revival of the old National Party. Even those of us who were, perhaps, inclined. at first glance, to favour the proposal, now recognise that it contained many grave defects. Would it uot be a serious mistake to disband, such a party as the Reform Party, destroying all its valuable traditions, principles and policy, in order to enable its members to join.a new party—or an old party revived —with no traditions, no settled principles, and no policy whatever? -A political party, should surely be, essentially, a combination of men who share the same outlook, tihe same principles, the same general views regarding policy. It- is only on this basis that the members of a party can unite—*if that party is to have any value in public life. Possibly his own experience with first the Liberal Party, then the National Party, and then the United Party, has ren- - dered Mr. Forbes incapable of appreciating the fact that there are others in politics whose principles and ideas upon policy are less transient and lightly held than those of the men who, in the last _ five years, have called themselves first Liberals, then Nationalists, then Uniteds. It cannot be forgotten that Mr. Forbes himself early in 1928 was announcing his own policy as Leader of the National Party. But six months later, when the National Party was merged in United, Mr. Forbes completely dropped his own policy to adopt that of Sir Joseph Ward (the policy of the "amazing manifesto” and the £70,000,000). Six months later again Mr. Forbes had once more changed his policy, as Mr. H. E. Holland declares, “under pressure from the Labour Party.” This United" Labour policy was pursued until, at the end of last year, the Labour Party broke off its alliance with the Government. Then Mr. Forbes, having lost the support of the Socialists, and seeing that his only chance of continuing in office depended now upon securing help from Reform, changed his policy once again, this time to satisfy the Reform Party. One can understand that, with such n history, the Prime Minister may be incapable of recognising the impossibility of forming a new party —a party of any permanence or value — without some settled principles or formulated policy to serve as the basis upon which its members can combine. Mr. Coates has certainly taken the only course consistent with the loftiest conception of public life and public duty. In refusing the proffered chance of office for himself, he has once again refused to admit that self-interest or expediency is the first consideration in politics. He has maintained the highest standards of public life by declining to join,- a new combination—any new combination^ —which I?'not founded upon the sure basis of prior agreement on principles, purpose and policy. Whatever be the outcome. New Zealand will honour Mr. Coates for having reaffirmed the principle that political combinations should always be based on "measures, not men.” —I am. etc.. MALVERNTAN. 'Wellington. May 6. Sir.—Support to the proposal of fusion recently made by the Prime Minister appears to he based on two grounds: first, the necessity for a strong Government in view of the economic situation : secondly, the desire to keep the Labour Party from vetting info power at either the next election or some subsequent date. Superficially, both these objects would appear to be attained by fusion, but in reality it would tend to have the opposite effect. The 'past session was one of the most trving in the history of our Parliament. Mr. Coates showed himself willing to place country before party, when nnv legislation, essential in the national interest. was brought forward If is diffi cult to see how matters would have been improved bad both the United and Reform Parties been in one camp. Surely the supporters of fusion do not suggest that Mr. Coates will not, in the future as he has in the past, rink party interests when a

question of national importance is at stake.

So far as the second ground is concerned experience shows that fusion, so far from keeping the Labour Party out of office, would ultimately have the opposite effect. Such a course would immediately secure for that party thousands of votes from opponents of one or other of the two other parties, wlio at present have the option, if they dislike United, of voting Reform, and-vice versa. But its ultimate effect would be much wider. Supporters of fusion would do well to remember that, if fusion had taken place after Mr. Milssey’s death, both parties would have been involved in the Reform landslide nt the last election, and Labour would in all probability have been in power to-day, with a clear majority, and power to carry into effect those proposals which, in the opinion of supporters of the other two parties, are so inimical to the national welfare.

We have in Australia an instance of the way in which, -nfte.r the fusion of the other parties, “the swing of the pendulum.” a phenomenon familiar to all who have studied politics, has put the Labour Party into power, with unfettered hands. Contrast the condition of Australia -with that of England, where the Labour Party hns been in power, under the three-party system existing here, and supporters of fusion may well ask themselves whether it is not wiser to bear the evils that we have rather than fly to others that we know not of.—l ?m, etc., IMPARTIAL. Wellington, May 5.