TRUCE OR BETRAYAL?

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 94, 22 April 1931, Page 8

TRUCE OR BETRAYAL?

Replying to a Labour member's question in the House of Representatives on Monday, the Prime Minister declared that "so far as the Government is concerned there has been no suggestion of altering the present arrangements for the General Election." Mr. Forbes inquired who was responsible for postponement rumours. We have no doubt that some of these rumours are based on the Labour Party's fear that by some means or other it will be deprived of what it regards as its great opportunity. Labour, as we have pointed out previously, hopes to make political profit from the present economic emergency. AH its energy is concentrated on that aim. The General Election, the party hopes, will see Labour receive the price in political power of the promises which it is so lavishly distributing now. Labour's expectation is not to be ignored, and therein lies the peril of the General Election. Many electors, it must be admitted, are short-sighted, even when , viewing their own interests. They fail,to see that, if they decline to sacrifice some present advantage in order that financial equilibrium may be restored, the stability of the country must be further disturbed, and this will involve1 them in losses heavier than those which they now face. Labour, then, may expect, and docs expect, support from the disgruntled ones who regard themselves as ill-used victims. With such additional support and with the nonLabour vote weakened by party division, there is a danger of Labour sidling into office. We are convinced that a majority of the electors do not desire this, but a triangular fight handicaps them in preventing it. The Government has had to face a thankless task •in retrenchment and economy measures. The Reform Party has, for the time being, put aside party feeling and supported the Government in carrying out that task. Both will suffer in loss of popularity at the election. Nevertheless, there are sufficient far-seeing voters who recognise that both Government and Reform have faithfully done their duty and should be relumed to continue. . But' if there is no truce in thel General Election those voters may be betrayed by circumstances which they cannol control. Failure of the Government and Reform Parties to agree may result in the return of many minority Labour candidates. It is this peril that causes people to look to the General Election with misgivings. And it is on this division that Labour is counting. A correspondent, "New Zealand First," in a letter published to-day, cites some objections to fusion, but without exception these objections are such that "New Zealand Last" would be a more appropriate penname. The objections are: (1) That fusion will not slop three-cornered contests because candidates will insist on their right to contest seats; (2) thai the three-party system must be maintained so that ardent "wet" or "dry" voters may not be forced to endorse a Labour candidate because there is no other choice; (3) that there must be a third party so that electors, when they tire of one moderate Government, may have an alternative other than Labour; (4) thai, as there is competition in business, so there should be competition in politics. To the first argument there- is one answer. Neither Reform nor United can keep out independent candidates. But this is not a sufficient reason for the abolition of party organisation. With independents in the field against fusion candidates the position would be no worse than at present. It, would,probably be much belter. To suggest that the parties should remain apart to suit the convenience of candidates who think they have a pre-emptive right.

Lo seals is the very negation of "New Zealand First." It suggests, indeed, that New Zealand isa prize-fight ring for politicians, with membership of the Legislature as the purse, and the people have no right to. interfere with ihcsc private fights. The maintenance of triangular politics to meet the convenience of ardent "wets" or "drys" is equally absurd. Surely "New Zealand First," if he wishes to humour the voters whose motto is "Liquor question first," should persuade the existing parlies lo submit alternative "wet"'and "dry" candidates.

The argument that three parties j should remain to satisfy the public! demand for change, without making that change 100 violent, suggests at once sham divisions. In passing it may be noted that the- three-party' system has not prevented Labour from attaining office in Great Britain. If the people perceive that the divisions are unreal they will be strongly inclined to reject both parties. The mere submission of such an argument acknowledges that the basic reason for party division—a real difference of policy and principle—is lacking. The correspondent admits this and jibes at the Government for its apparent readiness to accept the policy of Mr. Coates. The jibes are untimely. Certainly Mr. Forbes, realising the change in conditions, has been courageous enough to modify his policy. But Mr. Coates was only a few months ahead of him in this. As we showed beyond question in analysis of the "seven points," most of these points were not submitted to the electors as Reform policy in 1928, nor was there any attempt to bring them into operalion between 1925 and 1928 when Mr. Coates led a Government of overwhelming numerical strength. The last point raised —that there should be competition —touches .the real issue, but not in the way thai "New Zealand First" submits. We do need competition in promoting the efficient administration of New Zealand; but political, competition too often means competition for votes at the expense of the national interest. It is this which has caused much of the present difficulty. Business competition is not a parallel. .The business man who bids too much must pay the price. The politician who bids 100 much extracts the price from the deluded voter whose support he has bought with the voter's own money. Labour is now.bidding high with the country's resources. If "New Zeajland First" thinks this competition is good for the country, why'not increase the number of bidders? The price would never be paid, except by die country, but it would be a glorious sale.