Grey River Argus MONDAY, November 26, 1928. THE ANTI-LABOURITES’ QUANDARY.

Grey River Argus, 26 November 1928, Page 4

Grey River Argus MONDAY, November 26, 1928. THE ANTI-LABOURITES’ QUANDARY.

Now that his Party’s intention to call Parliament together next week has been disclosed by the Reform Leader, the opinion is widely shared that the upshot will be the substitution of a United for a Reform Ministry. This is based on the fact that the overtures for a fusion have been scotched. The eventual consequences of an administrative change will form doubtless the theme of general speculation, since they are not at present easy to foresee, but in the meantime a more immediate point, of interest is that concerning those United members who before the recent elections took up a peculiar stand on the question,of a no-confidence motion. However identical the tendencies of the Reform and United politicians may be, the popular anticipation that the one will take the initiative in moving to oust the other from the Treasury benches is obviously well founded. The object of assembling Parliament immediately, says Mr Coates, is “in order that the position mayt be tested.” No Party, he points out, has in itself a clear majority in the House, and therefore he considers constitutional dictates are for a test. The test, however, is not going to be merely a matter of party but the most interesting faet about it certainly promises to be that it is going to be a lest for certain Members individually. Some indeed may have already a notion of taking an early departure from a sinking ship, but they may be disposed at the same time to postpone desertion until after the no-confidence division. It is not such as these, who claim first attention. In this, as in one or two other electorates, however, there stood United candidates who solemnly and irrevocably pledged themselves with book and candle never under any conceivable circumstances whatever to vote against the Reform Government if it stood to be replaced by a Ministry—i.e., a Cabinet—whose accession to office would be dependent upon a single Labour vote. The reason assigned for this pledge was a dramatic assertion of eternal enmity against the Labour Party. The reason not assigned was a hope of catching the votes, of supporters of the Reform Party. Mr Veitch and a few more Uniteds are understood to have thus pledged rheniselves, and while it did not avail in every instance to secure election, we think it is absolutely certain Air Coates and his Party have decided for a test of the situation in the House simply because the Reformers reckon Sir Joseph Ward is quite wrong when he counts the pledgemakers in as pupporters, and at. the same time pays them the very poor compliment of counting them as pledge-breakers. Just what, would have been the position if every United candidate who undertook to go with the Government in a no-confidence division had been elected, is a consideration not devoid of its humorous aspect. ) Indeed, such as have been returned pledgebound to vote against their own side must feel their present position very awkward, and unless they honour their promises, they will be the laughing stock of .the House next week. The others who gave the pledges will perhaps thank the electors for saving them from such a predicament.