Grey River Argus TUESDAY, May 14, 1935. CONFUSION!

Grey River Argus, 14 May 1935, Page 4

Grey River Argus TUESDAY, May 14, 1935. CONFUSION!

Tt appears as if some at least -,f the members of the Reform Party are afraid they have more to lose than to gain from a straight our amalgamation with 'he Government followers who have been identified with what ■ w.i io be the United Party. They, at least, do not agree with the quid nuncs who say that “such a definite merger has been long overdue.” No doubt, they hnagine that, for one thing, a re■.huffle of portfolios would become due were the last pretence of any policy diffieren.ee to lie dropped by the Coalition elements. Perhaps there is also the further object to be served that a fusion would alienate at a critical time from many Coalitionists just the measure of support obtained from old-time Liberals that Pent them from defeat at last general election. At anyrate, it is an indication of confusion in the counsels of the Coalition electioneering camp when the selection of a new organiser for this year’s campaign results in the “official” broadcasting of a statement which even a Reform Cabinet Minister characterises as misleading. It only shows how far the propagandists for the Gov-ernmerit are ready to go in order to fool the people. This ringing of the changes is an insult to the electorate. What was the inspiration of the official declaration that every Coalitionist candidate goes to the hustings this year branded as a “Nationalist .' ” Our evening contemporary is afraid that label might only be camouflage for the Reform brand, and to judge by the policy of the Government, there is ample reason for such a fear. So far as the erstwhile Uniteds are concerned, there is a paradox. They wish to get rid of that description. The memory of a broken trust and a capitulation may be considered good warranty for this wish. But many Reformers manifestly i eckon that to maintain the fiction that their non-Reform colleagues are still to be considered as having some vestige of oldtime Liberalism in their make up is shrewd political business. They expect it to serve as an antidote in the public mind for a certain suspicion. This suspicion is simply that the Coalition is only another name for a Reform regime. It might be due to th c erstwhile Liberals to say they may see in a merger the chance of contesting in a degree the domination over Ihe Government exercised by the rulers of the Reform Party, but surely were they to have this notion, they would counter the repealed rebuffs they are supposed to have had by saying plainly they would end their present unsatisfactory position one way or the other. They would say that the Coalition must now come to one or another of two Igical cnclusions—either a fusion or a separation. Instead they are evidently scared to risk anything and are content to put up with confusion. This imay soon become worse confounded. To save many Government members from th p prospect of defeat is going to take a lot more than the knowledge of political tactics possessed by any retired civil servant. The first essay of th e new or ganiser is already being repudiated from the very last quarter whence a repudiation was to have been expected—a Minister! If that, however, is only part of

the game, it is a game that is hardly worth the candle. The people know they have been fooled a good deal, but they have not become any more reconciled to such strategy merely because it is being persisted with. It is no proper way of dodging the duty of what a contemporary calls “shaping a platform to satisfy the rank and file of those who have supported the Coalition.” How about lending a hand with a suggestion or two? The blessed word “organisation” is evidently not a good suggestion. The new organiser has at least proved that much!