THE COALITION.

Evening Star, Issue 21994, 2 April 1935, Page 8

THE COALITION.

The joint statement that has been issued by the Prime Minister and Mr Coates on the subject of the Coalition and its future does not cover all the ground that might have been covered. It goes far enough, however, to clear up an uncertainty that has produced a certain amount of embarrassment for would-be political candidates for some months past, and to serve all the purposes of practical politics. Four years ago the great majority of candidates who did not stand as Socialists stood under the labels of Coalition Reform and Coalition United, Roughly fivesixths of the votes that were cast in support of the Government were cast under those designations, though there were also Independent Reformers, Independent United, and Independent Coalitionists. The statement means that that is how candidates will stand again—probably with a smaller proportion of the party-coloured Independents. The Coalition will not be dissolved; on the other hand there will be no fusion into a single party. The Coalition will continue while there is need of it to pursue a common task. At the same time separation into its original elements is not ruled out as a possibility of the future. “ Our party will not lose its separate identity nor sacrifice its traditions,” was a condition of Mr Coates, nearly four years, ago, when he first agreed to Coalition, and he is still of that mind.

Mr Forbes, it is not concealed, would have preferred to have it differently. With longer traditions to take pride in —for the Reform Party has never, emphasised its descent from the old Conservative parties—his followers, generally speaking, would have been willing to give them up for the sake of fusion, identified by them with the common good. Perhaps the surrender would be easier for them to make, because for a long time now Reform has been the stronger party. In the present House there are only seventeen United (past Liberal) members and twenty-eight Or perhaps twenty-nine Reformers. United adherents, having a more Radical tradition, with more instinct for idealism, tend rather more to hive off and vote on occasion with the Socialists, Their party has gone further than Reform in allowing its organisation throughout the country to disappear under Coalition conditions, and if ever the parties were required to contest a General Election as separate entities again, organisation would be an important factor. For years the real glory of Liberalism (pity that the old name should ever have been abandoned!) has lain not in the numerical strength in Parliament which it retained, but in the extent to which its principles had conquered its former opponents, as the Greeks Of old, feven in their defeat, conquered the Romans. It is due to that influence, before it was reinforced by the increasing strength of Socialism, that no party in New Zealand for a generation past has dared to call itself Conservative, or to act entirely after the same way as the old Conservative parties.

The Coalition will continue, says the new joint statement. The reason given is that conditions of the country still require co-operation, not division. Ho would be a bold man who would dispute that reason. In the main, it is claimed, the Coalition’s plan for strengthening the ship to resist strong, abnormal Storms has been carried out, but the new timbers will need watching and more novel problems will still have to be grappled with in the future. A like point was made recently in respect of British politics by the ‘ Round Table.’ “ The aims of the self-titled • parties of progress,’ that wise journal stated, “ may be illumined by linking with Sir William Harcourt’s famous aphorism: ‘ We are all Socialists now,’ the remark of a latter-day wit that ‘ progress is . getting to the same place, only faster.’ How fast, and by what route we are to progress towards the modern Utopia of a planned economy is perhaps the most fundamental issue of current politics.” The Coalition Government in New Zealand has mapped out its route, arid though grave doubts, even acute disapproval, must be provoked by not a few of its decisions, in fairness it must be allowed that its freedom of choice has been much limited by external conditions. Mr Coates makes that bis excuse for the adoption of measures “ which, under any conditions except those of national emergency, could never have been contemplated,” and the excuse is not without its force. At least the Coalition has not lacked courage, and it has worked together harmoniously, with a view to making the best of local troubles, for nearly four years, which, after past division, forms a great record. So far as policies were concerned, Reform and Liberalism had become indistinguishable, and only traditions separated them, before they formed the Coalition. That will last, presumably, for the duration of next Parliament. If the joint statement had said what would happen after that it would have been an empty word. It is not for long that anyone can foresee the future.