POINTS AGAINST FUSION

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

POINTS AGAINST FUSION

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —May I bo permitted to bring forward one or ■ two. points that seem to have been overlooked in the current discussion as to the desirability or undesirability of fusion?

In the first place there is the common argument that a fusion of the Reform and Unitod Parties would obviate threecornered contests in the forthcoming General Election. I suggest, however, that the only result would bo to produce a large crop of Independents, so that three-cornered' contests would continue. In almost every electorate there is at present a candidate (Reform or United as the case may be) who is preparing to contest the seat with the sitting member. The writer is personally acquainted with a large number of these prospective candidates; and he is convinced that most of them (both Reform, and United) would not retire from tho eontesit in .favour of the sitting1 members if a fusion of the political parties occurred. Nor can we accuse them of lack of patriotism in this: in most cases these men arc honestly convinced that they aro more competent to serve the country than are the sitting members whom they hope to replace. To give point to the consideration, one may ask, taking definite illustrations, whether the Reform candidate would be likely to stand aside at, Mataura. in favour of tho sitting member, Mr. M'Dougall; whether Mr. Holdsworth at Eoskill should be'asked to retire from the contest in favour of tho sitting member, Mr. Muims; whether the United candidate would be likely to stand aside in Mid-Canter-bury; or whether Mr. Sievwrighfc would stand aside to allow Mr. Field a clear run in Otaki. It is absurd to bo "all up in tho air" in this connection: we are dealing with actualities. Anotherconsideration is this: as long as thcro are two anti-Socialist parties in. Parliament it is possible for tho poople to effect a change of government, as they did in 1928, without putting the Socialists on tho Treasury benches. But if the Reform and United parties were to amalgamate, then the only alternative government would be that of Mr. H. E. Holland. We know also that, sooner or later, probably sooner, the people would bo bound to become dissatisfied with any government, even a "fused" government; and whon that day arrived they would have no one to turn to but Mr. Holland. Those who advocate fusion seem, thorefore, to be advocating the path which would lead to Socialism. For those who do not desire a Socialistic Government, it would be wiser to make sure that Now Zealand" shall always have two non-Socialistic parties—so that a change of government can be effected when necessary without putting Mr. Holland in office.' The liquor question, again, cannot bo ignored as a factor in current politics. "While there are two non-Socialist parties it is customary to fincl a wet Reformer opposed by a dry United candidate, or a dry Reformer opposed by a wet United; and .in either case tho ardent supporters of prohibition or conH.niianee can. support a non-Socialistic

candidate who holds the right views ion the liquor question. But if. there were only one non-Socialist candidate ho would have to be acceptable either to the prohibition or to the continuance movement; and the "other side," whichever it was in any particular electorate, would be compelled to look to the Socialist. But why should ardent prohibitionists in some electorates, and ardent continuance supporters in others, be driven into the arms of the S.ocialistLabour Party? ,■ .*.-. ■-;■''■

The question <of political principles might be an important .consideration in other circumstances; but probably, in. the peculiar circumstances of : the present time, this is not material. The United Party, in any proposed fusion, would presumably be prepared to accept the principles .aid the policy of Reform. It is not unfair to recollect that Mr. Forbes and,tho present .leaders of tho United Party declared themselves in favour of one policy before the United Party was formed in 1928. When Sir Joseph Ward issued his "amazing" manifesto, Mr. Forbes and his colleagues promptly dropped their own policy to accept Sir Joseph "Ward's. A little later, under pressure from tho Socialist-Labour Party, they changed their policy once more to suit Mr. H. E. Holland. And now they have changed their policy once again, this time in tho hope of satisfying Mr. J. G-. Coates. It is 'thus evident that questions of political principle and policy will "not, on the United side, bo any obstacle^ A final consideration should weigh with some of the business mcn_ who axe now advocating fusion. One imagined that these sanie business _ men believed in the principle of competition. Is it not tho competition among businesses which ensures that the public shall be well served by business? Then surely the same principle may be applied to politics. The political parties might turn around on many of the signatories of the recent letter advocating political fusion, and might say to them: "First fuse or amalgamate your own businesses." —I am, etc., NEW ZEALAND FIRST. P.S. —A final fact to be considered: tentative arrangements are, to the writer's own personal knowledge, being made in "Wellington to-day for the launching of'a new party the day after fusion between tho existing non-Social-ist parties is effected. [We refer in our loading columns today to the points raised by tho correspondent.—EdJ .