SOLIDARITY v. DISINTEGRATION.
TO THE KDITOR. Sir, —Your correspondent R. Clark seems to have a great objection to place solidarity of party as a necessary factor in elections, and is astonished at Mr Hutchison not having received more substantial support. Well, sir, seeing that all Opposition victories are won by the splendid organisation and solid phalanx of their party, is it not absurd to ignore these tactics ourselves ? Were some of those who did support Mr Hutchison sincere in tbeir endeavor to return him ? I fearlessly affirm that a portion—viz., the , extreme Radical section, certainly were not. They were simply playing a lone hand. Seeing that Mr Hutchison wa3 an avowed Government supporter their desire was to turn the Government out, believing the Opposition would be more likely to carry out their extreme views. If this small band of revolutionists imagine the public will swallow at a gulp, in like manner to a doctor's pill, their radical platform I fear they are doomed to disappointment. They played the same game in 1896, putting up two of their number as candidates. With what result? Nothing, except to them the satisfaction of splitting up the votes and causing partial disintegration of the party. I wrote at the time that it was not a question of Hutchison v. Gourley, but a far more important one—viz., Government v. Opposition—and consequently the election of the stronger man of tho two. As regards strength, my remarks came true,'and probably had all the party acted ns true Liberals and not extremists the result of the election would have been different. The following is a fair summary of Mr Hutchison's support:—Temperance votes, 300 ; extreme Radicals, 200 ; sympathetic votes, 1,530. Seeing Mr Hutchison stood as a Government supporter, the latter number must have gone to Mr Gourley.—l am, etc., S. I'oyntz. Mornington, October 25.
Permanent link to this item
SOLIDARITY v. DISINTEGRATION., Evening Star, Issue 10454, 26 October 1897