Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1922. "THE COUNTRY PARTY.”

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 401, 19 May 1922, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1922. "THE COUNTRY PARTY.”

The so-called ‘'Country Parly/’ of which Mr A. A. Ross is the loader, will have to give a much better account of its aims and objects than that afforded by that gentleman in opening Ids political campaign for the Thames seat on Monday evening, before it is likely to seriously influence the electors. As outlined in the Press Association telegram it is singularly barren of ideas, and it is significant that the first reference to it by any public man conies in the shape of a repudiation by Air Hugh Morrison, president of the AVairarapa Provincial Farmers’ Union, of any sympathy with the movement inaugurated by Mr Ross and his colleagues in the Auckland province. Electing as they have done to play a lone hand in politics, the leaders of the Auckland Farmers’ Union must be prepared to accept the failure they arc courting, by their indiscretion in lighting their own friends, as a fitting reward for their action. It scarcely needed Air Morrison’s pointed reference to the matter to convince ns that the Auckland Provincial Executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union is not "playing the game”; that they are, indeed, prejudicing their own class by launching a movement for which there is no justification, and in support of which the gentleman they have chosen as their leader is only able to advance the most selfish reasons. Air Morrison's statement is very definite, and puis the matter in a nutshell. "I did not intend to refer to political divisions,” he said, "as the AVelliugtonAVairarapa Interprovincial Conference last year voted unanimously against a Farmers’ Party, and the Dominion Conference delegates, with the exception of those from Auckland, voted in a similar manner. I meet, however, some people, not farmers, who are tinder the impression that, because the Auckland province has nominated candidates ior rhe new party, that we are in sympathy with a Farmers’ Party lor New Zealand. 1 wish to correct such an erroneous opinion, and to state that there is no intention whatever of our provinces falling in with the movement started in Auckland.” The Auckland Union is proceeding In direct opposition to, and in defiance of. the well-considered opinion of the Southern I moos, and. what is worse, il hak neither the strength nor the unity to carry its policy through to a successful conclusion; nor yet again have its leaders' the genius, or the ability, to win over to their cause those whose support Is essential, il they arc to escape an overwhelming defeat in the campaign upon which they have entered with so little real regard for rural interests. While we believe that to he, the ease, we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that tho "Country Party” may ho successful in the sense that, by splitting the votes of the moderately minded electors, it may help a few extremists to secure election under the aegis of the New Zealand Labour Party, and thus inflict injury upon their own class. Even with the trading inducements offered by the' Auckland provincial branches of the Union, its membership is under 4000, and financially many of those are (on tho confession of the journal the Provincial Executive publishes) unfinancial. For a mere handful of people, standing almost wholly and solely on class interests, to look for success for their candidates at the Parliamentary elections under such circumstances is very foolish, especially as it is notorious that the members of the Union are i themselves divided upon tho question j of a .Farmers’ Party. A ONE-SIDED POLICY. The burden of Mr Ross’s contentions appears to have been that the farmer lias not had ' fair representation in Parliament. In view of tho facts a statement of that sort is open to the

obvious retort that the farming population lias never had a better representation in any Parliament than it enjoys to-day, and that it has had during the last ten years or more. At least live members of the Cabinet are, or have been, fanners engaged in the producing interests, and, throughout the war find since, no other class m the community has received greater consideration than the farmers. Uhile disclaiming any intention to sot up town and country antagonisms, Mr Ross declares that the new party wants to <r C t men into the House to look after farmers’ interests properly, and that it is up against the present labour sjstom; Ho shows his ignorance ol public affairs by, amongst other tilings, (darning the Government for the embargo placed upon the export of potatoes wholly oblivious of the fact that the , “embargo” originated with the Commonwealth Government, and that it was due to the action of that Government that our potato growers were not able to export their surplus to Australia. r f'lie embargo upon hides was due to the National Ministry and to the action of its Minister ot Munitions, the Hon. A. M. Myers. It was certainly tho least defensible ol the ‘■embargoes,” but it will be news to most people that any similar embargo was placed upon butter, and no one could have served the interests of the dairv farmers better than Mr Massey did ’in the negotiations with the Imperial authorities over the butter purchases. No reasonable man could possibly expect to obtain ordinary trading facilities under the abnormal conditions obtaining during the war. lr there is one thing more than another fo,. which .Mr Massey is entitled to claim credit, it is for the persistency with which he supported tho interests of our rural producers in all his negotiations with tho Imperial Got eminent. From first to last, the Country Party leader’s ‘‘policy” speech appears to have been a continuous growl against the Government, with not a hint of anv constructive policy other than the bettor protection (if that bo possible, which we take leave to doubt) of the farmers’ interests. With all its objectionable features the policy of the New Zealand Labour Party does better than ibis, for it does disclose some little consideration for those outside its ranks. But Mr Moss appears to he content to harp upon the grievances (real or fancied) of the farming community. There is neither vision nor foresight in the policy disclosed, which is, as wo have already said, the merely selfish outlook of a particular class, battling for its own hand. Better things might reasonably have been expected of it, unfortunately for Air Ross and bis colleagues they are not forthcoming, and we "'predict' for them the fate of the ‘■New Liberal Partv of Young New Zealanders,” which the Hon. George Fowlds placed in the field in PHI, everv member of which was cletentcd.