Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1920. THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 1861, 10 July 1920, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JULY 10, 1920. THE NO-CONFIDENCE MOTION.

With the no-confidcnce motions disposed of, the' Government should' be in a position to get to the business'of the session, which cannot be said to "have opened too propitiously. A little over n week has been wasted in discussions, the chief mverit of which, in the eyes of those supporting Mr Mac Donald's no-confidence motion, was that they would clear the political-atmosphere and show where members stand. That they have, nob fulfilled the latter objective is apparent. The only thing they have done is to demonstrate the weakness of the Opposition, both in debating power, constructive criticism and resource. A lamer amendment was never framed as an addition to an Address in Reply, nor one that was more lamely supported by a Party than Mr Macdonald's motion of no confidence. Apart from the one Minister (the Hon. Mr Guthrie), who was put up to reply to Mr Mac Donald, and who covered the ground so fully that Jittle or nothing remained to be said, no other member of the Government felt called upon, to speak, and the subsequent discussion certainly added nothing; that called i'cr the serious notice of Ministers. The Opposition by its attitude, really courted defeat, but it says very little for Mr Mae-Donald's leadership that he was only able to secure 23 votes, in a House of 80 members, to support the motion he brought forward. The voting actually demonstrated that the more effective force (and the one which, unfortunately for himsellf, has elected to cut itself adrift from: the Liberals) behind, but not with hijii, is Labour, which, in Mr Holland's catch motion, secured 16 votes—only seven less than Mr Mac Donald's. Had the Labourites followed the example set by the Leader of the Opposition in leaving the Chamber when the division was called on Mr Holland's motion, the Liberal vote on Thursday would have been reduk-ed to sixteen. The debate has made it clear that the Labourites, though whVh the Liberals on this occasion, are not of, and will only support, them when they i 'scent the possibility of getting the Government into a tight corner. .Beyond this, the only possibility of -an alliance between the two parties is with Labour as '"the top dog. 7 ' Mr Sta-r 1 ham's attack on the Government was a) far more serious matter, since it impugned the bona fides and integrity of three of his colleagues who' joined the Reform Cabinet. The discussion introduced so much of the personal element that it must have occasioned the Leader of the Mouse considerable pain, since it revived the story that went the rounds last year of disloyal intrignings against Mr Massey during the hitter's absence in Europe. We are not, however, so much concerned with what transpired in the earlier part of 1910. as with the subsequent happenings, when, following the break up of the National Govern-1 merit, Mr Massey found the members of his Party standing by him solidly, only two or three of their number withdrawing their allegiance by going to the polls last December as Independent candidates. And there are good grounds for saying that, but for the Miipport given them by the Reform Party, the "Independents" referred to wtould have had little or no chance of spiting back to Parliament. AX UNWORKABLE SCHEME. In contending for the right of the Partv t.i elect the members of the Ministry, Mr Statham was, as Mr Massey pointed out in his reply to that gentleman's speech, advocating a principle that, in its application, has been found extremely unsatisfactory, if not altogether unworkable. Mr Massey's experience as the head of the National Government Jjas convinced him of the folly of ex-p-wting Ministers to work satisfactorilv together, unless they are agreed on all important policy questions, and upon the nature of the .legislation to be in-

traduced: In the working out oi a policy it is always necessary that some one should lead. " A Ministry elected by the members of the dominant party would not necessarily lie a Ministry ol all the graces, or of all the talents; conceivably it would be the opposite, because the system of selection would loud itself to intrigues and wire-pull-ing, on the part of the more ambitious members, and the self-seekers of the party. The adoption of the principle would further leave no excuse open for the failure to extend it to the election of Ministers by the House itself, and in that case wo should bo likely to have Still greater intriguing for "place, power and pay." We already have a sample of the sort of thing which might be expected to result from the election of Ministers by the dominant Party, in the case of the New South Wales' Ministry, the members of which are already running amok with the State finances, pledging the Government to huge expenditures off-hand, without troubling to consult their nominal leader, Mr Storey, the Premier of the State. Mr McGirr, in his capacity as "Minister of Motherhood," for instance, committed the Government to an expenditure of approximately two millions, in connection with schemes which had neither been discussed by the Cabinet, of which he is a member, nor by Parliament. And the same sort of thing might be expected to happen here with each and all of whom who could claim, by virtue of their selection by their party, to have equal powers with the others. If (as is most certainly desirable) anything like continuity of policy, prudent administration and wise legis'ition is to be secured, the Prime Minister, as the head of the Cabinet, must be in euch a position that it is always within his power to exercise the fullest control. Were he deprived of the right to choose his own colleagues—and as deader of his Party he knows better ikm the rank and file who are most Jikcly to work together and to achieve the best results—he might as well place on one side his leadership, and with it the country would lose the benefit of his experience, ripe judgment and opacity. Mr Massey, whatever faults he may have (and he is not free from them, any more than are his fellows) js the outstanding personality, not only in his own Party, but in Parliament today. It would' be difficult to replace him by a man who could hold, in "tenter degree, the confidence of his supporters, and of the country, at the present time; nor one who is held in higher regard by such politicians as really count in the country's affairs'. We are not, therefore, surprifd that the House should have so decisively rejected a proposal, such as that made by Mr Statham, which could only have been a source of embarrassment to him.