Evening Post. MONDAY, MAY 4, 1931. SIR JAMES PARR'S VIEWS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 103, 4 May 1931, Page 8

Evening Post. MONDAY, MAY 4, 1931. SIR JAMES PARR'S VIEWS

New Zealand was glad to welcome Sir James Parr back after his long spell of oversea service, but it cannot be said that his first approach to party politics since his return indicates that the effect of his geographical and official detachment < has been to give him ,a new point of view or to broaden his outlook to the extent of a single inch. He laid aside the uniform, the blinkers, and the catchwords of party when he went to represent us in London five years ago, but he has resumed them all since his return, and there is not the slightest sign of a misfit. The continuous observation of British politics at close quarters, reinforced by frequent glimpses of the most intimate possible character behind the scenes, seems to have contributed as little towards Sir James Parr's education as his long, detachment from the politics of New, Zealand. The one lesson that he appears to ' have brought back with him from Europe is a strong conviction of the vital necessity of "a strong Conservative Party" to the health and safety of a modern Stale. Such was his confession in the speech which is reported from Auckland to-day. In nearly every country, lie said, there is a Conservative Party which stands for sane -and orderly progress, for law and loyalty, for moulding the existing economic system for the benefit of tho under-dog. Everywhere the Conservative Party is the strongest bulwark, not only against Socialism, but against that poisonous Communism, which, is entrenched in Europe and threatens the whole world. ; It may be that Sir James Parr's colleagues in ihe Reform Party, who prefer to leave to their opponents the use of the term "Conservative," would have been glad if he had not^been quite so emphatic in his infringement of tills monopoly, but as the Conservatism which he admires is one that exists "for the benefit of the under dog" they must recognise that he means well. Of far greater importance, however, is Sir James's unfortunate omission to tell us how much the Conservative Parly in Great Britain has been able to accomplish for the ...under dog or for any other dog during the last two years. The impression which, without any of the opportunities for close observation which.he has enjoyed, the people of this country has formed of the condition of British politics during that period is that it has been one of continuous and progressive demoralisation and danger—of danger for the nation and the Empire, and special danger for those interests and causes which the Conservatives have particularly at heart—and lhat with the best intention in the world, and with a bigger popular vole, bolh at the General Election and at the by-elections, than any other party, the Conservatives have been powerless to stop it or even.to administer any substantial check. Such a display of impotence, insincerity, and recklessness combined on the part of a British Government is without precedent in our time, and in accordance with the invariable .rule the under dog whom all parties express their desire to serve has suffered most. In the opinion of a large majority of the people of this country, the root cause of Britain's trouble is not the weakness or the wickedness of this party or that, but the fact that there are three of them instead of two. What does Sir James Parr think about it? If the profound convictions with which Sir James has returned from London included a profound conviction of the blessings which the threeparty system has conferred upon Great Britain he would have relieved his country of a great burden of anxiety by proclaiming it and justifying it. If, on the other hand, he regards this system as an unmitigated curse for the Old Country, he ought to explain why it is to be welcomed or even tolerated here. Without committing himself to either of these positions he has frankly taken the party instead of the national standpoint, assumed lhat the existence of1 three parties is inevitable, and given reasons why his own party should make no sacrifices for the purpose of reducing the number to two. It is deplorable that a man whose Imperial and international oullook has received a great expansion from his experience ia London and in Geneva should thus narrow his mind to the limils of a party with a loyalty which had its origin and its' justification in the days when there were only two parties, but may become a grave national danger under changed conditions. Everywhere, Sir James tells us, the Conservative Party is "the strongest bulwark" against Socialism, but he has overlooked the, fact that even though it may be the strongest bulwark, yet even in countries where there is a large antiSocialist majority it may become under the three-parly system a quite ineffective bulwark against Socialism. At the British General Election in May, 1929, only 8,300,000 votes out of a total of 22.500.000—a Jitlle more than a third —were cast in favour of Socialism, and the Liberals, who

polled 5,300,000 votes, elected to put Labour into power, but to turn it out if it attempted any "out-and-out Socialism." But Socialism has nevertheless repeatedly found its way to the Statute Book, and even with the support of 14,000,000 anti-Socialist electors the Conservative bulwark was powerless lo stop it. What has happened under ihe three-party syslem in Britain may happen under the same system here, and as Sir James Parr, despite his absence from the country, must surely know, the misreprcsenlative and dangerous process made a very promising start in ihe first two sessions of the United regime. The deplorable dependence of the Government upon the Labour Parly, to which we owe the destruction of our military defence system and other deleterious measures, was determined when Mr. Forbes had the courage to face the economic crisis with a programme so drastic and so sound that it was bound to bring upon him the anathemas of Labour. The patriotism of the Reform Party enabled the Government to carry that programme through, but if it is not prepared to meet the Prime Minister's invitation in the same patriotic spirit it will revive the old danger, and the restoration of the balance of power to the hands of Labour is about the best to be hoped from a triangular contest at the General Election.