FUSION REJECTED

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 May 1931, Page 5

FUSION REJECTED

REFORM PARTY’S DECISION MR. COATES’S STATEMENT [FEB PRESS ASSOCIATION.] AUCKLAND, May 5. In a statement regarding the question of fusion, which has been handed to the Prime Minister, by the Leader of the Reform Party, Mr Coates says: “You will readily understand that an to your for the elimination of the Reform Party and the United Party and the formation of a new Party, has demanded from me as grave and careful consideration as I do not doubt you gave your offer before making it. The Reform Party has accepted, without reserve, your assurance that your suggestion is dictated with no view to personal or Party advantage, and is made in what you consider the best interest of the country. And I ask you to believe that the Reform Party, in refusing, at this late stage in the life of the present Parliament, to disband and form a new Party with the United and Independent members of the House, does so in the belief that such action would not be in the best interest of the Dominion.

“It does not'appear to us that by naming the • proposed Party ithe National Party any special sanction or authority is acquired which entitles either Party to depart from its pledges to the electors, or, without consulting the electors, to start anew with, as you express it, a clean slate. My experience is, as you are aware, that a Government must fall, or resign, when its policy ceases to command public approval, or, if it wishes to change its declared policy, must consult the electors. If this sdund rule is to be relaxed, it must be done by the electors, and no one else —no offer of office —will induce us to join in an attempt to remove from the electors this right, especially when, at so early a date as next November, the future policy of the country will be determined by them. “Avowedly, the bond between the United Party, the Labour Party and the 'independents, which enabled the United Party to gain and retain office, was their common animosity to the Reform Party. Our policy has not changed, and, as far as we are aware, the alliance you have maintained with the .Labour Party for two sessions has come to an end, not because you are converted to the policy we have advocated, but because the Labour Party is dissatisfied with your policy. Those who are asking that all of the available forces be ranged against Labour are influenced by a fear of the accession of Labour to power. Since we do not share that fear, we refuse to destroy ourselves and to become part of a Party, however named, called into being for a reason which will influence every step it takes. The Reform Party seeks to represent, not a section of, but the whole people —not the country or the city-— no t the employer or the emplovee, but the employer and the employee. The course you suggest would, in our opinion, set up a class Government, and create a definite separation in politics between employee and employer which would be disastrous to New Zealand. The applica.tion of the term Nationalist to such a Party is misleading, and would react against those sheltering under it.

CLAIMS FOR REFORM.

“While I appreciate the good faith which dictated your statement, I can t but think that the very short life of your own Party has blinded you to the fact that a Party that has served; the country for many years, and has a record of service in office and out of Office of which its adherents, i are proud, cannot be torn up by the roots by its representatives in Parliament at a moment’s notice, and , I think, on further reflection, your long experience in Parliament will convince you that more than a name is needed to secure the stability and harmony so essential to strong Governments, and you must knoW that the proposed new Party would contain none of the elements of stability 01 harmony,, and all the seeds of inefficiency. To my mind, the suggested Party would mean to the country a great loss and little gain, inasmuch as at the present time a Party, to be effective, must be khit in the closest agreement on principle and policy. A Ministry of expediency, chosen as suggested, on practically the eve of an election by members elected on different programmes, would command in the House neither confidence nor loyalty; and, in my opinion, would inevitably suffer from disruption. “It would be grossly unfair, on my part, to allow' you and your Cabinet to resign their portfolios in a. belief induced by the recent comparative absence of criticism in matters of administration, apart from known differ-, ences on major policy measures, that your administration has been such as to command from our Party, any substantial degree of confidence in the administrative abilities of the Ministers. Sir Joseph Ward’s long illness, your own absence at the Imperial Conference, and the necessity we have'been under lately, to assist. you in your economy measures, stilling criticism for the time being, may have misled you into an assumption of a widei’ range of agreement than actually obtains. Any misconception of this nature would ultimately lead,to internal recriminations, which must provoke discord and prevent harmonious co-operation. “In conclusion, we think it is in the best interests of the country that the assistance you are entitled to ask of us should bo given on the lines traditionally adopted, and so far followed by us. The Reform Party has made it clear in the session just closed that it will support such measures of economy and finance as the present crisis demands. We recognise your responsibility to balance your Budget, and will offer no factious opposition to such measures as may be necessary to attain that object. “If further help is required, not merely in the House, but in the preparation of legislation, 1 am prepared, in the public interest, if you so wish, to fui’nish a small committee of Re--1 form members to confer with your Ministers before legislation is intro- ’ duced. If you agree with my proposals, it should be reasonably possible to safeguard the interest of the people in the present period of 1 economic straits, and to carry on the

government of the country until the time when the electors will decide for themselves the policy and the Government the country desires.” MR FORBES’ COMMENT. CHRISTCHURCH, May 6. Mr Forbes, who was at his home at Cheviot this morning, said that he was not yet in a position to make a statement" regarding Mr Coates’ action in declining the Government’s offer for a fusion. Mr Forbes said that the reply from the Leader of the Opposition required: consideration, and possibly a conference with the members of his party. PARTIES’ POLLING STRENGTH. With a fusion between the Reform and United parties under consideration, analysis of the 1928 general election returns throws into illuminating relief the combined potential voting strength of these political units (writes “Damocles” in the Auckland “Star”). Dealing with the 76 European constituencies only, and using round figures, it is found that 68 straight-out Reform .candidates polled 251,300 votes and 55 United candidates 216,200 votes, representing a combined total of 467,500. The Labour party, which had 55 nominees in the field, received 196,000 votes. Other votes were distributed as follow: Independents (11 candidates), 31,500; Independent Reform (7), 16,200; Country party (5), 12,000; Liberal-Labour (2), 3800, Independent Liberal-Labour (1), 2600, Independent Labour (4), 2300; Independent United (1), 2100; Christian Socialist (1), 200; Liberal (1), 130. The outcome was the election of 26 Reform candidates, 25 United, 19 Lavour, 5 Independents, and one Country party member. Subsequent, by-elections and party defections and transfers have altered the totals. 1 As a result of the factors mentioned, Reform gained 11,500 votes, the Independents 7730, and the country party 570. Independent Reform lost 12,569, United 8570, Independent United, 2120, and Labour 470. With the appropriate adjustments made, the totals to date would be: — Reform .. .. .. 262,’800 United 207,600 Labour 195,600 Independents .. .. 39,200 Country .. ~ 12,600 Other candidates — ■ Ind. Reform .. ..' 3,700 Liberal-Labour .. 3,800 Ind. Liberal-Labour 2,600 Ind. Labour . 1 .. 2,300, Christian Socialist .. 200 Liberal 130 Total .. .. .. .. 12,730 At the 1928 general election 40 of the European seats were contested by United, Reform and Labour candidates. The aggregate United vote polled was 147,220, the Reform? 138,330, and the Labour’l2l,B9o. Sixteen of the seats were won by Reform, 15 by United, and 9 Labour. In five of the seats won by Labour the candidates polled less than the combined total of the votes cast for the United and Reform nominees.

The result of the two triangular bj’ elections —Hutt and Parnell —gave a seat each to Reform and Labou.’, whose aggregate votes were respectively 7422 and 7169. United’s aggregate was 8065, but no candidate was returned. The successful Labour contestant was a “minority” candidate.