Evening Post. MONDAY, MAY 18, 1925. PARTY OR UNITY?

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 114, 18 May 1925, Page 4

Evening Post. MONDAY, MAY 18, 1925. PARTY OR UNITY?

The talk of an early session and | an\ early dissolution has fortunately not lasted long. It is equally fortunate that the meeting of the Reform Party which is to appoint its leader, and in effect the country's leader, also will not be held till several weeks-have passed. That the official report of the Liberal Caucus which was held last week is, if not "nothing doing," at any rate "nothing to communicate," is also to the good. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by rushing things. Both' parties j are laced with the heavy responsibility of a decision which will pro- j foundry affect the fortunes of the country during the next three ] years and a half, and perhaps for a good deal longer. Nor is the responsibility confined to the political leaders or to the rank and file of their respective parties in Parliament. It is a matter which vitally concerns the people as a whole. Those who will have to pay the cost of a wrong decision, and whose judgment is much less likely to b~e distorted by the excitements of the party game, are given 'by the delay the opportunity both of deliberately making up -their own minds and of helping the "politicians to make up theirs. To say that the sovereign people will get its chance at the General Election is to ignore the fact that by that i time the issues may have been so shaped by the bungling of the politicians as to^ be beyond \the power of cure by the rough-hewing process which is all that the electors can exercise at the ballot-box. It is already easier to get the true perspective than it was last j week, and next week it may be ! easier still. The rival claims of Mr. Downie Stewart and Mr. Coates to I become Mr." Massey's successor,! formed the chief subject of discussion during the two days that followed the funeral/The most interesting suggestion was that of the "New Zealand Herald," viz., that there should neither be a Stewart Ministry nor a Coates Ministry, but either a Stewarfc-Coates or a Coafces-Stewart Ministry—a| sort of consulate with the supreme executive power in commission. The Stout-Vogel Cabinet to which our contemporary refers would be more in point if any question of titular precedence wore seriously involved in the present case. We are glad to think that no such question provides 'either the crux of the problem or a material part of it. Each of the competitors is per-' f eetly willing to render loyal service under the other, and to abide by the decision of the party as to whether it is in the public interest that he should take the first or the second place. Whether it is to be a Coates Ministry or a Stewart Ministry, a Coates-Stewart or a Stewart-Ooates Ministry, is • a matter of relatively small importance. The substantial question is whether it is to be a Reform Ministry representing, as heretofore, one party alone, or whether it is to be a Reform-Liberal Ministry with a basis as broad as that which gave us the National Ministry during the war. If the Reform Party is to retain a monopoly of power, it will carry on the work of government under even more embarrassing conditions than those which the leader it has lost had found during the last two sessions to be almost intolerable. What chance of success would it have in carrying a burden which grievously overtaxed the strength of Mr. .MHSEej-: 1! W? assiuate, .aa.d we believe, flint 4 agw

Reform .Government could be formed not only without breaking up the party but without seriously straining its unity. But even ii there is no strain at all, what have the Reformers left in the way of Parliamentary skill, driving power, and moral authority to compensate for the loss of the man who had led them for more than twenty years ? It seems almost an insult to his memory to suppose that a party which with his help has only just been able during the last year or two to keep its head above water [can escape disaster even for a single session unless some radical change is made in the conditions. It might, of course, play out time on sufferance because one or other of the Opposition parties did not .think it worth while to anticipate by a few months the normal date of the General Election through forcing the issue. But if the decks are cleared for action during the coming session we cannot see how a Reform Government-can reasonably expect to survive it. Whether it survives or not, 'where can a party which under Mr. Massey's leadership narrowly escaped defeat at tho last General Election, and only fluked through on a minority vote, hope te find the immense accession of strength needed not merely to compensate for his loss but to provide the extra credit needed to ensure a victory? The Reform .Party which was opposed to breaking up the War Coalition before the General Election of 1919, and which after the last General Election formally made overtures for reunion, has now, in our opinion, far stronger reasons for renewing those „ overtures. Nor do the difficulties of the Reformers hold out any positive hopes to the Liberals. We cannot see the faintest indication that the Liberals have so impressed the popular mind that there is any chance whatever of their getting a majority at the next election, or even of their substantially improving their position. They may win a seat or two in the confused fighting of another triangular contest, but the chief gainer will be the Labour Party, whose aims and ideals, both in domestic and in Imperial policy, are so far removed from^ their own as to make the distinction between Liberal and Reformer a mere matter of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The Diehards, whether Reform or Liberal, who are endeavouring to perpetuate the artificial differences which separate the two parties are. playing right into the hands of the Labour Party and exposing the country to the grave risk of entrusting that party with the balance of power.