Grey River Argus and Blackball News THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1922. THE ”STAR'S” POLITICAL VACUUM.

Grey River Argus, 12 October 1922, Page 4

Grey River Argus and Blackball News

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1922. THE ”STAR'S” POLITICAL VACUUM.

Delivered every moininjf in G: ■ ath. K Hokitika, Dot son. Wallsend. Taylw. Ngaherc. BlTckbail. Nelson Creek, Brunner. Te Kingh:> Rctomanu, ?oerua, Inchbonnie, Patara, Ruru, Ka mata, Kotukv Moana, Aratika, Bunanga, Dunoi ic, Cobden, Baxters, Kokiri, Ahaura, Ikamatua, StiilWuter Waiuta, Reef ton, Ross, Ruatapua, Mananui, Hari Hari, Waiho Gorge, Weheka, Rewanui, Otira, liieiufritua Junction, Westport, WaimangaroOc De”.ni ton. Gianity. Millerton. Ngakawau. Hector, SeddonviLLSo Cape Foulwind. and Karamea / -

The renders of our evening contemporary yesterday got the doubtful benefit of some of its editorial views in relation to the coming Westland, election. Its readers might be disposed to wonder why the said views concerned only the Labour candidate —or, as the “Star” has it, “a possible Labour candidate.” As a “picker” of Labour candidates, however, the readers would be well advised not to rely too greatly upon our contemporary! It must be said in justice to the “Star,” however, that it is not at all unfavourably impressed by the merits of tbe‘ “possible” candidate in question, Mr James O’Brien. He does not himself, it says, “pose as a super-candidate”; but will “put up a clean fight,” and is “probably”—not “possibly”—as good a nominee as could be obtained from among those who want Labour’s platform upheld. The “St: r,” of course, throws upon the platform the mud which it would hesitate to sling at the platform’s upholder. This ruse is not surprising, in view of our contemporary’s assiduous cultivation of the habit of belittling the principles of Labour; but the contrast between its altitudes towards the one and the other must signify to the judicious reader that its condemnation of the platform and its acknowledgments in the upholder’s favour arc, to say the least, very difficult indeed to reconcile. Now, the “Star” has on one previous occasion expressed itself in favour of the Liberal candidate, but it has not since had a word to say on the subject, except in condemnation of Labour’s platform. Where does the “Star” stand in regard to the Masseyite platform? Does it distinguish between it and the Liberal platform? And, if so, is its preference for the latter due to the fact that any difference from the Reform platform consists in the greater degree of resemblance which the Liberal platform has to the Labour platform? It must know that the Liberals last election tried to pilfer the Labour platform. Did not Sir Joseph Ward want to nationalise mines, ships and a lot of other things? If the “Star” likes Labour’s “possible” candidate well enough apart from his platform, why does it support the Liberal platform? Latterly it has been sitting on the rail, by eulogising the Reform policy. We would like to know just what sort of a platform the “Star” fancies. Before it condemns Labour’s, it surely should outline its own. Otherwise, its readers are left in a political vacuum! Perhaps that is where our contemporary manages to exist. Men, however, abhor a vacuum in politics as much as Nature does one in matter. Our contemporary takes “much more space” to say what it does not stand for than what it does stand for. It is about time it began, however, to tell its readers about its own

policy and principles, rather than about policies and principles which it wants them to ignore. Then it may get out of its strategically bad position in a political vacuum. z