PLAYING THE GAME

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 121, 18 November 1931, Page 8

PLAYING THE GAME

Though the United and Reform leaders have shown the way to their respective parties there is still some hesitation in subordinating personal and party desires to the national interest. Some candidates have'withdrawn, but others have appeared. In some quarters this is excused by references to the inalienable rights of the electors of which they shall not be deprived.

Tho political rights we enjoy to-day were woa by men who fought and suffered for them (said one Independent yesterday), and, I challenge any two gentlemen in Wellington to rob me of what I hold dear. ' :

It is all nonsense to talk about robbing anyone of political rights which are held dear. Any elector has the right to stand for election to Parliament if he can find a deposit of £10 and persuade two other electors to nominate him. No one has suggested depriving him of that right. The average elector, being modest, regards it merely as the right to lose £10 and foregoes it without regret. What the "two gentlemen in Wellington" (supported by the members of their parties) have proposed is that, for this election and for.the maintenance of the Coalition, all who agree with the United and Reform policies should agree also in this part of the policy. A loyal United supporter would not oppose his party's candidate; nor would a loyal Reform supporter. Each is now asked, to extend his loyalty and not oppose a Coalition candidate. Mr. Coates stated the position concisely in his speech at Te Kopuru: —

I am as fervent a believer in Reform principles as ever, but, in the face .of dangers, party and personal interests must be subordinated. I will take any position in tho team as long as I can help tho country.

That is the attitude that the patriotic party leader finds himself forced to take. It was the same in Great Britain when the National Government was formed. The Conservative leader, Mr. Baldwin, then look the position which the United and Reform leaders in New Zealand have now taken. It was not done without sacrifice. Speaking at Birmingham, Mr. Baldwin said:—

Wo have, as Mr. Neville Chamberlain said, lost tho opportunity which would havo been ours had it not been for this crisis, of appealing to the country as a parly against the Government, and nothing could have snatched victory from us. By joining a National Government wo surrender many places in the Government and in office that might have been ours. . . . But wo recognise that unless such surrenders aro made no National, Government is possible and that we cannot accomplish what we believe to bo essential, and that is the establishment at this time of a National Government, because we want to bring to play all the forces that stand for stability of finance We want not merely to defeat the enemy; but want-to rout him.

" Mr. Baldwin referred briefly also to playing the game and particularly as it was touched by the local opposition to Sir Herbert Samuel and by certain instructions issued to Liberal candidates and chairmen.

I know perfectly well what local feeling is at these times (ho said) . . . but I do not think that to oppose a leader of tho party that form's part of the National Government is quite what I should call playing the game, but it is only fair to remember that it is much easier to play tho game if two people do it instead of one.

In New Zealand we' have no suggestion of failure to play the game by either of the party organisations. The differences and difficulties are local and in no small measure personal. Insistence on these differences cannot be cloaked as a disinterested fight for inalienable political rights. The parties, have agreed that the

national welfare transcends party and personal interests. They have agreed to make sacrifices. Is the smaller sacrifice now sought from local supporters to be refused, on the transparent plea that the emergency which demands unity in New Zealand as a whole is not a sufficient justification for unity in Roskill or Wairarapa or Mid-Canterbury?