IN DEFENCE OF POLITICAL PARTY.

Marlborough Express, Volume LIII, Issue 277, 25 November 1919, Page 6

IN DEFENCE OF POLITICAL PARTY.

[to the editor.]

Sir,—Jf was, I believe, the Marquis of Salisbury who,- in an atrabilious mood, described leading articles as "insipid productions written by office boys for office boys." The description was spiteful; but the sort of stuff that is being dealt out to us in the leading columns of some of our large city dailies on the alleged enormities or party government is just about enough to justify the English statesman's ebullition. Let me briefly set out a few of the points that may be made in refutation of current criticisms.

1. There is a big element of humbug in much of the present-day attack on party government. A man like Mr H. IX Vavasour, who, as he lias explained, has opposed the party system all his life, years before the no-party cry became the shibboleth of the hour, is nianifestly genuine and sincere, and is to be respected. But what are we to think of such papers as the Christehurch Press and The Dominion and '■ the Otago Daily Times as preachers of the anti-party gospel—papers that, with all their many journalistic excellencies, have been during their whole history amongst the bitterest, most uncompromising, and most partisan party organs in the Dominion? These sudden conversions are, like Tom Hood's oyster, "open to suspicion." Is anyone so innocent as to believe that if their own particular party had a snug and safe majority behind it these Conservative organs would be found bleating so piteously for the obliteration of party lines? 2. There is a still greater element of exaggeration in these daily disquisitions on the evils of the party system. Lord Palmerston is on record as haying declared that "he would not give a d—— for followers who would only support him when he was right. What he wanted was followers who would support him when he was wrong. He could get plenty of members to back him when he was right." But we have changed all that, and the days of the Palmerstonian partyism are gone forever. The ridiculous press pictures in which members of the Reform and Liberal parties are represented as political slaves, ready at a moment's notice to violate their consciences at the crack of the party whip, have no relation to the facts, but are suggestive of political jimjams. The The true position is sufficiently and correctly indicated by Mr H. Holland, ex-Mayor of Christchurch, who has announced that "he would exercise ah independent judgment on political questions generally, but on a no-confidence motion he would vote solidly for the Liberal Party.'' An assurance of that nature would be accepted as entirely adequate and satisfactory by either Mr Massey or Sir Joseph Ward. Will some of our anti-party demonstrators please demonstrate what fault is to be found with such an attitude?

3. There is a fundamental fallacy underlying the anti-party propaganda. The fallacy lies in the idea —expressed or implied—that a good party man cares nothing for the country as a whole. The fact is quite "the reverse to the contrairy," as Artemus Ward, would say. The good party man adheres to a party, not because he cares two straws for the fate of the individual members comprising it, but essentially because he believes its policy is in the bast interests of the country. His prime aim is the good of the country —as he sees it—and he accepts the party only because his common sense teaches him that to secure results concerted action is necessary, and a party offers the organisation and machinery requisite to the carrying out of a political programme. 4. This brings us naturally to the reflection that a member of Parliament who remains unattached to any political party places himself under a heavy handicapj both as to his own personal political career and also in respect to the service which he will be able to render to his constituents. Confining our attention to the last, it is evident to the meanest understanding that a member has practically no chance of carrying any important proposals through Parliament unless he has the backing of one or other of the leading parties; and if a member insists on appearing in the role of a political foundling, who belongs to nobody and nobody belongs to him, he may take it as quite certain that his constituency will suffer.

5. Futility and absurdity are writ largo over the no-party movement. Futility—because to cry for the abolition of party is to cry for the moon. Political parties exist in practically every country in the world that is governed by representative Parliamentary institutions; and they so exist bocause they correspond —roughly and approximately, of oourso—to psychological facts and

tendencies of human nature. Absurdity—because at the present moment neither The Press, nor The Dominion, nor the Otago Daily Times, nor The Marlborough Express, nor Mr Downie Stewart, nor anyone in the whole regiment of "kickers," offers us any practical substitute to replace the party system. The Marlborough Farmers' Union did indeed come forward some time ago with a remit in favor of the Elective Executive, but plausible and 'attractive as that proposal looks on paper the hard-headed members of the Farmers' Union Conference wisely turned it down. In the absence of some such provision, members who wish to remain "Independent" in the new House Avill have no option but to form a party or parties of their own. So that the no-party movement lands us in a ridiculous reductio ad absurdum: the alleged problem of party strife and division to be solved by the establishment of yet another party, and by the creation of still further divisions 1

Tiie true remedy, I venture to suggest, for our present and prospective difficulties is to strengthen one or other of' the existing parties, and above all to secure a moreaccurate expression of the will of the people by the introduction of proportional representation. In the meantime, when'we have one party promising nationalisation of the coal mines, tiie purchase of State colliers, the establishment of a State bank, and the speediest possible completion of the South Island Main Trunk Railway, and another party declaring that this programme is "'nationalisation run mad,'' and promising Marlborough a whole £15,000 —to be placed on the Estimates and actually spent upon us if we have any luck —it is a poor compliment to the intelligence of the electors to declare, as some papers still continue to do, that there is no line of demarcation between the parties.—l am, etc.,

J. A. SCOIT.

His Majesty's Theatre. [Lord Salisbury's reference was not to newspapers in general, but merely to the l>aiiy Mail. This was quoted in the Daily News's open letter to Lord North'cliffe when Mr Robert Blatchford joined the Daily Mail writers five years ago.—Ed.]