Evening Post. THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1931. DISUNION-ITS DANGERS

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 106, 7 May 1931, Page 10

Evening Post. THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1931. DISUNION-ITS DANGERS

, Yesterday brought us from Melbourne the report that a conference of- seven Victorian political organisations opposed to the Federal Labour Government had agreed to accept the leadership of Mr. Lyons— a man who six months ago was a member ■• of that Government —-and pledged itself to unity of political action. Victoria has thus come into line with a movement which iirst attained to popular dimensions in New South Wales, and seven of her political organisations opposed to the Federal Government —most, if 'not all, of them being doubtless Nationalist or Independent in colour—4iave agreed to unite under a Tasmanian Labour leader. And this striking example of the way in which the unity enforced by a great national danger is defying°the limitations both of geography and of party is being supplied, be it rioted, by a country in which, as certain party parrots in this Dominion are constantly assuring us, the dangers of fusion and conversely, of course, the blessings of disunion have been conclusively demonstrated. Australian's, who may be presumed to know their own business best, are evidently of a different opinion. Whether the new organisation is to be a permanent one is a question on which its promoters must be as much in the dark as anybody else, and on which they are probably divided in opinion and even in desire. When the danger is past it may be that Mr. Lyons and his immediate followers will prefer to resume their previous allegiance to Labour, and that the Nationalists and the Independents will also drift apart. But in the meantime the ship is on a lee-shore, and the rocks are very close. The old quarrels are, therefore, lo be suspended unlil a great united effort has worked her to a place of safety and the storm has passed. Looked at from a distance, this Australian attempt to unite all good citizens for the protection of the safety and honour of the country from an appalling disaster is such a, common-sense procedure that there is hardly' room for two opinions about it. .But it is often easier to applaud others" for doing the right thing than to do the right thing ourselves, and tin's familiar truth was painfully illustrated yesterday. The same day which reported the success of the unity conference in Melbourne witnessed the breakdown of the New Zealand Prime Minister's attempt to effect a union between the two parties whose mutual hostility at such a time as this is not only a far greater danger than the worst that the third party can do, but is actually a very serious danger indeed. While all the Victorian parties opposed to the Federal Government have agreed to combine in what they call .the "United : Australia Movement," the Opposition Party in this country, if it is correctly represented by its leader's letter, is quite content to continue in these hard and perilous times the Disunited New Zealand Movement to which nobody thought of objecting in the good old days when there were no war debts, no crushing taxation, and no unemployed, and the loan money was rolling in with no indication that it would ever stop. The most surprising thing about Mr. Coates's reply to the Prime Minister's invitation is not that he has come to a wrong conclusion, but that the reasons given for his dissent from the solution of the- problem which the Prime Minister proposes betray an almost complete failure to realise that there is any problem to solve. We say "almost," because he does recognise that in order to avoid the calamity of an abortive session some kind of co-operation between the | Government and the Opposition will be necessary. But this commonsense conclusion only increases the wonder that he should fail to apply the same common sense to the General ■•■ The tripartite division of parties which, if unchecked by some mutual understanding, would bring the session to a primitive and disastrous case, must inevitably, in the absence of any similar check, result in a welter of crosspurposes and confusion at the General Election, of which one thing at least may be predicted with certainty. Whatever else may emerge from a fight under these chaotic conditions, the emergence of a strong and stable Government seems to be quite impossible. The electoral chaos is indeed likely to make the present confusion worse confounded and the present instability unstabler still. Yet in the concluding sentence of his letter Mr. Coates refers cheerfully to the General Election as

tho time when tho doctors will decide the policy and the Government the country desires.

What did they decide last time? Instead of a solution they provided us with. 3. problem, and as Mr. 'Coatcs

has refused to estimate the factor which is the cause of llio whole trouble —the third party—the decision which he expects to settle the problem is much more likely lo aggravate it. Another "yes-no" decision is almost inevitable under the present conditions.

The other essential which Mr. Coates has almost completely overlooked is the critical condition of the finances ami industries of the country, and the certainty that the slump will not stay its steps to meet the convenience of the politicians. On this pojnt a striking contrast lo Mr. Coates's letter was presented by the speech of Mr. W. J. Poison, M.P., which we were glad to print beside it yesterday. Speaking as president of the New Zealand Farmers' Union to its Dominion executive, Mr. Poison expressed the opinion that even the farmers, whose sufferings have been more prolonged and more severe than those of any other class, have not yet taken the full measure of their troubles.

He believed that the farming community as a whole did not realise what was likely to happen in the next few months unless active steps wcro taken to prevent it. They all know what was happening in Australia, and he would suggest that New Zealand was not very far behind her neighbour, and might be confronted with the same position in the near future. . . The shortages were appalling, and they meant that the country would be faced, with a situation at the end of twelve months that would overwhelm the people unless concerted action was taken. They mean probably that more drastic economics would have to be undertaken in tho near future, and a big increase in taxation.

But the "concerted action" which Mr. Poison declares to be the essential condition of safety is peremptorily rejected by the Reform Leader. Can lie really suppose that a minority Government led either by Mr. Forbes or by himself, and precariously holding on to office in uncertainty as to the result of the next division—-as the present Government actually had to do for. a considerable part of last session—can possibly be equal to the task? Or. would Mr. Coates prefer to give Mr. Holland a turn? . Even now we trust that Mr. Poison's hope for. something belter than an "armed truce" between the moderate parties to be followed by a free fight at the General Election may be realised.