REFORM'S SEVEN POINTS

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 133, 3 December 1930, Page 10

REFORM'S SEVEN POINTS

It is interesting to examine the comments made on Mr. Coates's recent statement regarding political fusion and Mr. Ransom's reply. The Christchurch • "Press" - expresses the attitude of that section of the Reform Party which believes that the salvation of the country rests with Reform. "There has not been and is not now any question or hope or thought of negotiation (states the "Press"). The Reform Party cannot negotiate, because it will not compromise. It has no 'proposals' to make because it has principles to stand to. . . If the United Party, or any members of it, choose to fall in behind, they are as free to do so now as ever they were." The flaw in this argument is disclosed by an examination of the seven points stated by Mr. Coates as the fundamental principles of Reform. As we showed in a detailed reference to them, some of these principles have been endorsed by United, some have been discovered by Reform since it left office, and in the whole seven there is no insuperable obstacle to agreement by reasonable men. It will not be sufficient, we are convinced, to submit these seven points and a vague declaration of no-com-promise on principles. The public will wish to know more particularly [what are these principles which canliot be compromised; how long they have been Reform principles, how far they accord with Reform practice; and wliat is the measure of their political importance that their maintenance is more pressing than the need for a strong Government. Another Reform journal, the "Otago Daily Times," on the other hand, welcomes Mr. Ransom's reply to the Leader of the Opposition, and hopes that ,Mr. Coates will not meet the offer and undertaking of the Acting-Prime Minister with a blank "non possumus." "To do so would distinctly be to disregard the hopes of large numbers of the supporters of the Reform Party.'' It is this point that both parties must consider: the views of their supporters. In both parties there are members who, by long allegiance, have convinced themselves that their party and their party alone holds the secret of prosperity. But this membership is but the nucleus of the political force. All Reform supporters are not wedded to lhat party; nor are all United supporters bound for life to the party led by Mr. Forbes. Electors must make some choice while the two parties are in the field, but that does not show that they consider the separate existence of the party they support essential to ihe country's welfare. When the differences are so vague that their definition is difficult, a party Avhich assumes that an uncompromising attitude will be endorsed by the electors run a grave risk of being disillusioned. Its stand for principles is liable to be viewed as a stand for party, and its talk of country before party as a mere idle profession.