THREE-PARTY POLITICS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18680, 9 April 1924, Page 8

THREE-PARTY POLITICS.

The defeat of the Labour Government in Britain on the Evictions Bill does not involve the resignation of the Government. In the familiar circumstances of the two-party system, Parliament's rejection of a proposal that is, beyond quibbling, a measure of policy, would be followed by the resignation of the Government. But the circumstances are not familiar. Instead of holding office by virtue of support by a majority of the members, the Labour Government Is inferior in strength to the Conservative Party, and faces an overwhelming majority if Conservatives and Liberals combine against it. It is the Government on sufferance, and can accomplish only so much of its policy as the Opposition parties permit. The novelty of the situation was expounded by Mr. Mac Donald in opening his first speech as Prime Minister, and he then outlined the manner in which the Government proposed to accommodate itself to the inherent difficulties of its minority. He declared:

The Labour Government will go out if it is defeated upon substantial issues, issues of principle, issues that really matter. It will go out if the responsible leaders 01 either party or any party will move a direct vote of no-confidence and carry that vote. But I propose introducing my business knowing that I am in a minority, accepting the responsibilities of a minority, and claiming the privileges that attach to those responsibilities. And if the House on matters non-essential, matters of mere opinion, matters that do not strike at the root of the proposals which we make and do not destroy fundamentally the general intentions of the Government introducing legislation— the House wishes to vary our propositions —the House must take the responsibility for that variation. A division on such amendments and questions as those will not bo regarded as a vote of no-con-fidence.

The statement appears explicit enough, until an attempt, is made to give it application to a specific issueThen its vagueness is revealed. Mr. Mac Donald has admitted that there is no real definition in his pronouncement, for at a later stage of the debate, when Mr. Austen Chamberlain had asked him to euggest the circumstances in which a hostile vote would be accepted as a vote of censure, Mr. Mac Donald said: We cannot define these things with rigid scientific definition which would enable the right hon. gentleman to turn up my speech to-day and say, " There it is—the defeat you have suffered in the last few minutes is precisely such a thing as comes within that definition, therefore yon must go." Wo will just take the circumstances as they arise. If it is a defeat upon a principle, that will be equivalent to a vote of censure. . . But I can assure the House of this, that the Government will not remain in office five minutes after a division in the House has deprived it of its sense of dignity. If a multiplicity of parties becomes a permanent feature of politics, Governments may have to modify their policies to maintain a majority, and regard defeat on particular proposals only as a direction to amend them. But in the meantime, the divisions between the Labour Party and the others are too wide to allow such simple adjustments. Mr. Mac Donald may abandon principles, such as the capital levy; he may accept successive defeats upon every item of his policy that he ventures to advance; his whole programme of legislation may be completely stultified ; and still he may declare himself insensible of any injury to his "sense of dignity." But at any moment the Opposition parties may carry a vote of noconfidence, and from that verdict there would be no appeal, unless, eventually, to the electorate. If none of them takes that step at present, the only explanation is that they are awaiting a tactically favourable opportunity or reason for dismissing the Labour Government from office^