THE THIRD PARTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19141, 6 October 1925, Page 8

THE THIRD PARTY.

The argument developed by Mr. Hockly that the existence of a third party affords greater security against the advent of a Labour Government does not bear examination. It was used in criticism of the fusion proposal, but if it .has any reasonable justification it would apply with greater force to the issues of the general election. If Mr. Hockly is right in his contention that the National Party shouid be preserved as the source of an alternative Government, then he should advise his supporters to vote for the Nationalist candidate for his seat. Such a proposition might be made by Mr. Cliakard, but it is curious counsel to come from the Government candidate. The con elusion rests upon demonstrably false premises, and as it will probably be a popular theme in Nationalist speeches it would be well for electors to realise its fal lacious character. It is true that after a long tenure of office, a poli tical party may suffer from the accumulated discontent produced by the failure of hopes which may have never had more solid foundation than the invincible belief in the omnipotence of governments. But that discontent cannot be fatal to the party's prospects so long as the actual record of legislation and administration has been sufficiently good to satisfy the great majority of the people, who form their judgment upon an intelligent appreciation of the limitations that restrict a Government's efforts. There is no support for Mr. Ilockly's argument in the fact that the Liberal Administration was dethroned after 21 years in office. That was not a case of the people tiring of a good Government. The Liberal Party was displaced because it had lost its power; in leadership, in policy and in administration it had so gravely deteriorated that the country evicted it from office in favour of the Reform Party, in which it recognised the promise of more vigorous and constructive administration, a judgment that is fully justified by the party's record of legislative and administrative reforms. The people as a whole do not tire of good government, though they promptly

dismiss a government that has become effete. But the most dangerous fallacy in the whole proposition is that there is security in maintaining two parties as a defence against socialist government. If a majority of the electors is opposed to socialism, their strength would obviously be more effectively employed in maintainij\~ one strong party than two weak ones. If the division has any reality, neither party can give the country the good Government of Mr. Hockly's proposition, and though circumstances might permit an experiment with the alternative, the disunion is more likely to hasten the Labour Party's opportunity. Certainly those who dislike that party's programme cannot afford to trifle with any amiable theories about the Nationalist Party's future, since general acceptance of such confused ideas would very probably result in an impartial division of their votes between Government and Nationalist candidates, and the gift of victory to the Labour Party. By making certain that the Reform Party is returned with a strong majority the electors will effectively dispose of all speculations regarding the value of a third party.