THE THREE PARTY SYSTEM

Hokitika Guardian, 3 December 1929, Page 7

THE THREE PARTY SYSTEM

(liy "X.")

Since writing last on “irresponsible criticism” and in explanation of the ‘"three party system” the matters then referred to have been brought under notice from two separate sources. The British National Liberal Federation ha's passed a resolution, according to the London correspondent of the Auckland Star of which the following is the text. The resolution was moved by Mr Ramsay Muir.

‘‘since there are many who hold that government cannot be carried out efficiently unless the Administration of the day is in command of a majority which enables it to dictate its will to Parliament, this council desires to express its view that the efficient conduct of government is not only practicable* in a condition of balanced parties, but that the prestige and authority of Parliament can he resteded if the following conditions are observed:—

“(1) The Opposition should no longer regard tile ousting of the Government as its primary end, but should do everything to facilitate the conduct cf public affairs without foregoing the right of free and reasonable criticism. The council expects that this public-spirited policy will be pursued by the Liberal Parliamentary party, whatever party may be in office.

‘‘(2) The Government ought not to resign or threaten resignation on any but a vital issue, and should on a minor issue accept the judgement of Parliament.

“(3) A minority Government ought not to have the right of dissolution unless and until every alternative means of carrying on government without a dissolution lias been tried. “Subject to these conditions, the council believes that government can he efficiently conducted without secret pacts or bargainings between parties, and the sovereignty of tlio people can he effectively exercised through a genuinely representative Parliament.’’

Out of the/ discussion there emerged the clear feeling of the conference that the three-party system could he an effective form of government. It has, in fact, a redeeming point that it gives a way of escape from Cabinet tyranny if properly used, and it gets us further away from that conception of government as a small autocracy ruling a sub-servient House of Commons in virtue of a . large and independent majority. Air Ramsay AfacDonald, moreover, who has faced the situation, sav he is willing to regard the House as a council of State in which all the parties contribute from their capacity and experience to the common task and give the country sound administration, 6 It should !be added that Air Ramsay Muir’s admiration for the three-party system is such that he would rather a Liberal Government were not returned with a clear majority if that would mean a return to the two-party system. Could enthusiasm go further? And Air Ramsay Muir is one of the members of . the Liberal party whose election pamphlets and whose books on Liberal questions have done more to mould public opinion than any at the present time. He asserts firmly that the three-partv system used in accordance with the carefully drafted resolution which we have just quoted would bring back to the House of Commons its long prestige. He considers it a matter for rejoicing that wo have now a Government which cannot flout the House of Commons.

The position in New Zealand is such, that were the conditions as laid down by the British National Liberal Federation observed, the position politically would be clarified, and the issues made clear. The Conservatives—a numerically small but influential section would vote “Reform” or whatever they like to call themselves, (though I could never understand what was wrong with the good old, and original designation), the Liberals would vote Liberal; and those of the. Labour Unionists who axe in touch with the Socialist-Com-munist propaganda of their leaders would vote Radical under the guise of Labour which, though politically meaningless is just now a good name to conjure with. But if the Coates and Holland parties, though they may throw a brick at one another occasionally, persist in combining to throw mud at a.uv government of which they are not the head, the expressed will of the people that the old liberalism of Ballance and Seddon shall again be the political policy of the country stands every chance to be flouted. Irresponsible criticism may become dangerous when it is remembered how many side issues govern the fate of elections, and make the voice of democracy incoherent. A very sinister aspect has just developed in connection with the approaching byelcction. for the Hutt to which I will refer later.