WHICH?

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 115, 17 May 1930, Page 8

WHICH?

PARTY CONFLICT OR

NATIONALISM

The Welfare League writes —

With the resignation o£ Sir .Joseph War! under circumstances which arouse every* one's sympathy, there will revive a de< sire for a re-alignment of party division^ in the country. It would be quite wron(J. to assume that the people generally; wanfc : coalition of the two old parties.' Coalition* are not famous for strength and virility* and are at best a makeshift. The country* we believe, is anxious for strong and vigi ■ orous government which will supply tba requisite sense of security to provide foi; healthy progress. What is looked for ia a fusion of the best elements in our pblii tical life, and-an infusion o£ strength, and* confidence which will give Us a Goyerni ment with a mission for constructive work. It is for such new life in our-politics that individual citizens are looking. For some years past the Welfare Leagua has seen'the change coming about, and as an organisation voiced its opinion of what was wanted. In 1919 we published the foli lowing: "The old Beform and Liberal P.ar-i ties are no longer divided on any important matter of principle, and their'7political.'.. ■platforms, if they 'differ at all,: differ only -in minor details." We ' protested.' then that "the ■ electors in 'favour ;rof-'Bana';: reconstructive legislation were being -ask- ' ed to split their votes, not on matters o£ principle but on personal prejudice^ instead of combining to combat a movement organised and headed, by men; of. professed revolutionary, ideas." . Again, in 1923, we wrote: "That all the world, over the voters have got to face two. policies which have a fundamental .difference; it is no less than constitutional reconstruction v. revolutionary Socialism^ individual liberty v. Socialistic State con* trol. If, we are right,- then we must sink' our minor differences and combine to meet determined attacks on personal, liberty. The present selfish party divisions merely? assist the revolutionary movement by) weakening the constitutional forces.'V In 1925 our report summed up ■ thus i, "The remedy is obvious, and we have stressed this for yeara, namely, to get back to the system where the House is divided on fundamental difference rather, than personal prejudice.: This means, iaj short, the combination of the !best';-'ele« ments in the House with a non-Socialist policy . to oppose the Socialist Labour Party, which owes its strength largely toi the present selfish divisions whicfi exist amongst their opponents. This would'bo effected at once if the^vast majority ol electors had their way." • ,■ ~. > Whatever parties have been in ttto past, the natural lines of division to-day, are between the forces that stand tor vnational unity aid constructive progress, in harmony with thes Empire to which, ■we belong, as opposed to the elements. which rest on a basis of class consciousness and Socialism, supplemented by « vapid sentimental internationalism, ■■•-i.he line of. division is class versus nation. Conference between parties, which is to ba ■■ only bargaining for position' and huckstering for portfolios, is worse than useless. It remains to be seen whether the .politicians are sound enough on principle to meet this situation or whether. they . allow personal ambitions and _ prejudices to- perpetuate the useless divisions which stand in the way of a mutual'understand- | ing to co-operate. ■ . . ... ■.:.■-■