The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 1906. THE POLITICAL SITUATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 13949, 4 January 1906, Page 6

The Lyttelton Times. THURSDAY, JANUARY 4, 1906. THE POLITICAL SITUATION.

The correspondent whose letter on the political situation we publish this morning is mistaken in supposing that w© are “ well satisfied with the present *political position.” There is nothing very dreadful the matter with the situation, but a progressive can never afford to be satisfied. He may be pleased or displeased with the rate of pro-' gress, but a reformer’s work is never done. And we have been, frankly, dissatisfied with the progress of the last few years in legislation. W© agree with our correspondent that' there are constitutional reforms sadly needed by the colony—the referendum, to commence with, and the elective executive. But it should he clear' to those who think with our correspondent that they are delaying rather than hastening the day of reforms. They hurl unsubstantiated charges of maladministration and dishonesty against the Government and then, apparently, they are surprised and offended because the Government does not fall on their necks and bless them. They slander the only party from which we can expect progress and then blame that party because in its councils their advice is disregarded. A Government can make only such speed as the people themselves or their, representatives will permit. There is the case of the Absolute Majority Bill to prove it. The Liberals in the House, we understand, were given the opportunity of saying whether they would support the absolute majority system or the second ballot system, and norther reform secured sufficient support.to warrant the Government in submitting a definite proposal to Parliament. For ten years now a small but ardent section of tbo Progressives has shown a tendency to separate itself from ill© main body of the Liberal Party, and tbo result has simply been to weaken the influence of the Radicals with the Government. If there had been any prospect of the formation of a strong Radical Party, the attempt to divide the Liberals might have had some excuse, but. it seems to ns that the Now Liberals failed where the Left Wing failed. Instead of identifying themselves with the party of progress, they posed first as critics and opponents of the administration. The result was inevitable. Their friends in Parliament and ‘people out of it saw clearly that the. success of the critics could only mean the accession of the old and new Conservatives to power. The administration of Liberal legislation would thus be banded over to its bitter- opponents, and there would be less prospect than ever of further legislative progress. If the New Liberals had shaped their policy with the idea of maintaining a Liberal Ministry in office and influencing its policy we do not doubt that they would have become a great power in the land. There was a stage at which this now organisation promised to include twelve or fifteen members of the House of Representatives, and might easily have included twenty members, but as soon as the more violent individuals attempted to drag it into opposition to the Liberal Government it fell to pieces. It may bo possible.

for aU tv© know to the contrary, to create a new progressive party in the country, hostile to the present Government, but so far the attempt has not been made seriously, and the only present hope of progress lies with the present Government. This was the position before the elections and it is more emphatically so now. Our correspondent should be able to see for himself that every vote cast against the Government at the elections, whether for a New Liberal or for an Oppositionist, was a vote cast, in effect, to put Mr Massey and his friends in power. Under existing conditions, at any rate, he cannot condemn Mr Seddon’s administration and at the same time advance the cause of radical legislation. The position may be unsatisfactory from his point of view, but there it is. We have dealt patiently witli this question because it is the real issue raised by.our correspondent, and- we have no doubt that there are other electors who, like him, fail to understand the position. But if the disappointed critics of the Government expect to be treated courteously they must measure their language. Wordis like fraud and dishonesty are used nowadays as though they implied nothing more serious than a failure to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. We have had enough and to spare of wild accusations against the personal honour and integrity of Ministers of the Crown, and our correspondent would help tiie cause he professes to have at he irt a good deal more effectively by consulting common courtesy and decency in public controversy.