PARTY BARGAINS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 90, 13 October 1931, Page 8

PARTY BARGAINS

When the Coalition Government was formed there was a definite purpose in view—to establish a strong United Government. Obviously such unity was unattainable if the Government were to be a Government of two parts, constantly on guard against each other. At the beginning there appeared no danger of this. Apart from the fact that the Cabinet comprised five members of each party, there was no indication of party bargaining. Portfolios were allocated according to the qualifications of members, and if the result was to give the Reform side a greater share of authority this was accounted for mainly by the fact that in Mr. Coales and Mr. Downie Stewart Reform had members well equipped to handle Public Works, Transport, and Finance. It would havje been wrong and against the spirit of the coalition to have made any other choice. Mr. Forbes's assent was proof of his readiness for that team work which Mr. Coates a few days later stated was being carried out. The responsibility for maintaining this amity lies upon members of the parties outside the Cabinet as well as upon Cabinet- members. We assume that members recognise this. It will be an unpleasant surprise to the public, therefore, to read a statement by Mr. C. H. Clinkard, M.P. I am anxious about the position of the Coalition, Our new partner is seemingly very concerned with party bargaining.. Obviously if members are constantly watching for political opportunities in view of future election contests it will not be in the best interests of the country. If Mr. Clinkard is not unnecessarily apprehensive of trouble there has been a disposition to overstrcss the importance of balance of power. The public do not want this. It will matter little to the public whether the Reform side has been responsible for one part of the policy and United for another. The Government's performance will be judged as the work of a coalition, with both -parlies equally responsible. Party cannot, unfortunately, be set aside completely when the association is not permanent; but it should be sincerely put by for the time being. This cannot be done if either party is constantly mindful of an election to be fought in the future, and is busy scoring points to count at that election. This is dangerous to the maintenance of sound team work and it will not benefit the party in the long run. The public will not ask: "Who got the best of the party bargaining?" but: "Who began the bargaining business when the work llic Government was formed to do was scarcely begun?" It is difficult for members of Parliament lo realise how little party means oulside the House, bul for their own good they should try lo grasp this fact.