The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1391. WHERE MR. LYSNAR WOULD NOT BE WANTED.

Gisborne Times, Volume LXXII, Issue 11492, 20 November 1931, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1391. WHERE MR. LYSNAR WOULD NOT BE WANTED.

It is now patent that our evening contemporary realises that it has an impossible task ahead of it in connection with its efforts to persuade a majority of tho electors that it would bo in the interests of this district to send Mr, Lysnar buck to represent it in Parliament. Mr: Lysnar, on tho day that Parliament prorogued, was an Independent and was recognised as such not only by all political parties, but also by Mr. Speaker. Ilis endeavour now to poso as an “Indejjendcnt-Coalition-isl’’ is mere humbug. Unlike, say, Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. Lysnar had not i the political courage to coinc before tho electors as a straight-out Independent. His political acrobatics during the late Parliament liavo never been rivalled in this Dominion, or, perhaps, elsewhere. In turn, lie has been an Independent Reformer. a United supporter, an Independent and now an -'‘lndependent-Coal-itionist”—whatever that might turn oulj to mean. Tho coat of many colors which Joseph of olden days is stated to have possessed would have nothing on tho .main piece of apparel in Mr. Lysnar’s political wardrobe. But we are digressing somewhat from the particular matter to which wo wish to rofer. Tho “Herald,” wo note, attempts to discount Mr. Do Lautour’s very proper plea that it would bo all to the advantage of this district if it were to return him as a loyal Coalitionist, -but it would be difficult to imagine a weaker effort than that which it puts forward. What is suggested, is it matters not one iota if a member happens to be a supporter of a strong government. It is no doubt true that some districts have gained But little although represented in Parliament by a supporter of a party-in power. But could such a state of affairs be regarded as flatter, iug to any such member? The upshot is, invariably, that the long-suffering electors of a district so treated rise up when their patience is exhausted and make a change. Wto are quite certain that Mr. Lysnar in his heart dues uot.sliaro tho evening journal’s preposterous contention. It if be otherwise, why, in the past, did he' leave no stone unturned to secure the lleform “label”? And why is lio now so disheartened on account of t he fact that ho is tho only member in tho lute Parliament who angled for the Coalition “tag” and could not get it? What- is most astonishing is that our contemporary would also have it believed that although tho caucus system is in voguo it amounts to nothing. Why every political tyro should know that the government in power holds caucuses for the purpose of placing its viewß before supporters on important matters before they are brought forward in the House. If it did not do so, it might easily find after it had introduced some important proposal With which many supporters were not in agreement. No •, government would, of course, risk, such a condition of things arising. We hold—and we know that this must bo the general viewpoint—that never before has ii been so essential that the candidate selected for Gisborne on this occasion - should be assured of the right to attend all Government caucuses. The contention that Mr. Lysnar in his new and impossible role of an “Independent-Coalitionist” would, if returned; be honored with the right of entry to all Government caucuses is puerile in the extreme. What enabled him to attend lleform caucuses before he betrayed that party was, of course, the fact that ho was, then absolutely pledged to vote with it on no-confidence divisions. But, after his treachery, ho never again was admitted to the Reform caucus room. Then, ii the Coalitionists would, as our contemporary would have it believed, permit him (if returned) to attend their caucuses, how came gt about that no such invitation was extended to him during tho period"the Coalition Government has been in office? Mr. Lysnar' e chances now of attending Coalition caucuses would he still smaller. In support of this contention, all that need be pointed out is that, not long ago, Mr. Lysnar from the floor of the House very adversely criticised Reform members in the Coalition Cabinet, and, incidentally, let himself loose, in a very foolish manner, in respect of tho Hon. D. Jones and the Hon. A. Hamilton in particular. One would require to be very simple, politically, to believe that they would, for a single moment, agree that Mr. Lysnar, if returned, should be permitted to enter the caucus room and air his views oh' the government’s programme.