Manawatu Evening Standard TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1926. POLICIES IN CONTRAST.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 172, 22 June 1926, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1926. POLICIES IN CONTRAST.

Party caucus meetings were the order of tlie clay last week. The House may be expected to settle down to business with the Ad-dress-in-Reply debate which Mr 11. Tapley, the member for Dunedin North, opens to-morrow evening in the Government interest. In due course, in pursuance of its policy of attack on every possible opportunity, the Opposition, led by the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, will bring forth its amendment asking the House to do the impossible thing by stating that it has no com fidence in the Government or its policy. In effect the Labour amendment will ask the 54 members pledged to support the Government to stultify themselves by recording their votes in favour of the thirteen members constituting the Labour Opposition. The thing is an absurdity, on the face of it, but, just as “Hope springs eternal in the human breast,” so our Labour Socialists probably regard pre-sent-day absurdities as the actualities of the future, and look forward to the day when, by their incessant attacks on the Government stronghold, they may secure the much prized possession of the Treasury Denches. Whether, following the precedent they established in the last Parliament, they will launch several amendments to the Address-in-Reply remains to be seen. They will be very foolish if they attempt to do so, for the debate permits of a very wide latitude in criticism, and the one motion, without the amendment, should suffice to cover all the debatable ground that needs to be traversed. The Nationalists, constituting with “the lone Liberal Party” the other Opposition, propose to adopt the more sensible policy of maintaining (in the words of their leader, Mr G. W. Forbes) “a vigilant scrutiny of the Government’s proposals and administration, so that there should be no abuse of the autocratic power placed in the hands of the Prime Minister,” though it is not stated in what direction that power has ever been used, or is likely to be used, even if it exists, which we venture to doubt. Further, Mr Forbes and his followers very sensibly recognise their own limitations politically, and the futility of using “the division lobbies to emphasise the strength of any criticism.” Consequently, they propose to work through the only avenue open to them—-that of “argument and criticism to

which end they propose to use their best energies, leaving the decision and the responsibility in the hands of the Prime Minister.” Indirectly that statement of policy carries the implication that, as far as the official Opposition is concerned, the Nationalists are not likely to follow its lead in any division called for by Mr Holland and his friends in Parliament; but that, on the contrary, they have no desire to be “associated with the Labour Socialists, as they were in the last Parliament on many occasions. The circumstances are, however, different. Then the Government was comparatively weak and the Nationalists were in the ascendancy on the Opposition benches, and recognised as the Opposition proper, and there was always the possibility of tripping the Government up on a snap division, and, with the help of the Labour Socialists, securing temporary control of the government of the country. In their present position, even if they decided to throw in their lot with the official Labour Opposition, not more than 23 out of the 80 members of the House could be brought into line against the Government. Like wise men they recognise the logic of the position and are guided by it, and that will, we think, give them a better claim upon the electorate when Parliament again goes to the country than they could have by engaging in factious opposition in alliance with the Labour Socialists.