LACK OF CHANGE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 25 November 1938, Page 6

LACK OF CHANGE

LABOUR CABINET REPORTED DISSATISFACTION THE RECENT CAUCUS j The opinion that the announcement by the Prime Minister, Mr Savage, that there were to be no Cabinet changes for the new Parliament, had created dissatisfaction among the left wing of the Labour Party, is expressed editorially by the “N.Z. National Review,” with which is incorporated the “New Zealand Manufacturer.” The article claims that though there were no major casualties in the Labour Party at the general election, it was expected in well-informed Labour circles that a fresh deal and a new shuffle might be called for, and that there would be some changes in the Cabinet after the first three years’ testing by trial and error. It is pointed out that the elected executive has been a plank in the Labour Party’s platform and constitution almost from its inception. “When the Labour Party came into power three years ago with an overwhelming majority, there was speculation as to who would form the first Cabinet, and how it would be selected,” it is stated. “Many of the members hardly knew one another, and had no way of judging fitness for Ministerial office. So the first caucus decided to leave the elective executive provisions in abeyance for a start and allow Mr Savage to select his own team-mates for Labour’s first Cabinet.

SELECTION “A SHOCK” “It is said that Mr Savage’s first Cabinet selection came as a greater shock to his Parliamentary followers than to the country at large, for the elected members of the party knew the quality of Mr Savage’s hand-picked team better than the general public did. About half those chosen were obviously unfit for the posts to anyone who knew them, but in spite o£ lively disagreements in caucus, the Cabinet team held together and muddled through the first three years without any major disasters. “It is an open secret that the younger members of the party were bitterly disappointed by the Prime Minister’s choice, but as they had left the selection to him, they had no real grounds for revolt. . . The recent election sent the party back with about the same number of pledged followers, and the main subject for the first caucus was naturally the programme for the next three years, and who should constitute' the Cabinet for implementing it.” CAUCUS HAPPENINGS Dealing with the first caucus of the party after the election, the “N.Z. National Review” says:— “What actually happened at that first caucus is still a supposed secret. But as usual there was a fair amount of leakage in Wellington when it ended so abruptly, and some of the disgruntled members expressed themselves more freely than usual. It appears that a majority of the newly-elected members wished to apply the elective executive principle of the party, and select their Cabinet and appoint the Under-Secreta-ries for the next three years. It was thought that some of the Cabinet had fallen down on their jobs and could do with a spell. In any case if it was good enough for the people to elect their members, it was good enough for the people’s elect to select the executive, and any suggestion of a dictatorship or one-man control was anti-democratic and utterly opposed to the spirit and bedrock principles of the Labour Party. This move by the back-benchers in caucus was opposed by the party leader, who pleaded for loyalty, solidarity and adherence to ‘constitutional’ practice in allowing the Prime Minister a free hand, and Mr Savage hinted that if the caucus decided on selecting Cabinet they might have to find another leader.

“In his attitude Mr Savage was, naturally, supported by his Cabinet colleagues, and views for and against the proposal were freely and fluently debated. Unofficial reports state that the rebels’ proposition was carried by * a small majority, and that in some confusion as to the exact position the caucus broke up for the lunch interval and did not reassemble.

“The closure applied to the caucus was a snub to the left flank, and it was promptly followed by a public statement from the Prime Minister that there would be no Cabinet changes for the new Parliament, and later he denied rumours circulated that he might be retiring from the Premiership. Mr Savage also intimated that the Government would carry on its functions without interference from outsiders, and that he regarded himself as elected by the people rather than a party leader who had to consult the rank and file about his activities.” OUTLOOK FOR FUTURE The “N.Z. National Review” concludes that it is now likely that the country will enjoy a respite from advanced legislation of the extreme type for a while, and that the Government will find plenty to occupy its time with consolidating previous legislation. “Above all, if our high standards of living are to be retained and secured the paramount question of increased wealth production from land settlement and far grer\er manufacturing activity needs constructive effort and progressive development in every direction. These are problems which call for united rather than party or controversial treatment, and in a reasonable approach to them we feel sure Mr Savage will have every sensible section of the community supporting him, if not the left-wingers.”