THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1928. PARLIAMENT TO MEET.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 20112, 24 November 1928, Page 12

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1928. PARLIAMENT TO MEET.

The exact results of the election having now been ascertained as closely as possible pending any recounts or petitions, Mr. Coates has chosen to meet Parliament and have the fate of his Government decided there. A session will open on Tuesday week. It need not be a long one, nor need there be any doubt about its outcome in one respect. Mr. Coates and his colleagues will relinquish office, and Sir Joseph Ward will be given the opportunity to form a Cabinet. So much can be forecasted with complete confidence. That being so, and the very early opportunity having been taken to have a doubtful position tested, it is fair to say Mr. Coates comes out of the position with full credit. Had he taken the shortest possible cut, that of resigning forthwith, there would still have been a session before the normal date. All the arguments against Mr. Coates remaining in office in the present state of the parties would have applied equally to his successor. The bes£ way out —Mr. Coates believes the constitutional way—was to decide as he has done, and let such possibilities as exist be tried out with Parliament in session. The general outlook, apart from the special position of Mr. Coates and his party, has been greatly clarified by the statement Sir Joseph Ward has made, following his conference with his followers. He shows himself little disposed to consider a fusion or a coalition with the Reform Party. Whatever else may happen, ho has effectually "banged, barred and bolted" tho door against that. The attitude ho and his party have taken up is logical and consistent. Sir Joseph says it would be a most improper thing for the United Party to entertain any such proposals, after having been returned pledged to vote the Reform Party out of office. Later he uses even stronger terms. From his angle he is quite right. The other party to a contract, if one were to be made, would be doing an equally improper thing; for Mr. Coates and his associates, i after the way they attacked and were attacked by the United Party in the campaign, would appear in an equally grotesque light if they agreed fb fusion or entered a coalition. The only people the arrangement would really suit would be those of the Labour Party. They would bo presented with endorsement of their threadbare assertion that nothing more than a sham light was waged by the two older groups, which wero one at heart. This would be a great consolation for the undoubted disappointment tho election brought them. However, there is no reason why the Reform and United Parties should merge merely to oblige Labour. As no better reason for doing it can stand the test of analysis, with Sir Joseph's statement as complete warranty the possibility of such a thing happening can bo dismissed finally. There is no valid cause for reproaching the United Party for having taken the initiative in quashing tho suggestions. They have simply saved Mr. Coates from having to do something similar, thus vindicating political life from tho chnrgo of hypocrisy and insincerity it would have had to bear if there had been a fusion in existing circumstances. Sir Joseph Ward has reiterated his devotion to his election policy in an equally uncompromising way. He intends to press it to the Statute Rook, even if it means another appeal to the country. That is to

say, the United Party will go forward with its borrowing proposals, which formed nine-tenths of the appeal inado in the recent elections, and will face a dissolution rather than compromiso on them. This is the absolute meaning of what Sir Joseph has said. Again there need bo no complaint. By whatever means he may reach and hold office, ho is bound to set about doing, as best ho can, what he said ho could do and would do, what all his pledged supporters said he could do. It is very doubtful whether he would be justified in accepting any support that was made contingent on substantial modification of the policy. It is certainly not for Mr. Coates to obstruct, though he perfectly at liberty to criticise. Indeed, as the lleuald has already suggested, it is rather Mr. Coates' duty to demand that the United Party should do what it said could be done. Its members had a wonderful time during the election campaign attacking the Government for having failed, as they alleged, to live up to its undertakings.' Now is their day to pass from words to deeds. Tho chief service the Reform Party can render the country in tho immediate future is to see that this is done. If Mr. Coates adopts this attitude the Labour Party cannot seriously disturb the situation, us is realised in tho unofficial, but obviously inspired, statement that has been published. It refers to "covert fusion" being advocated. This is a characteristic interpretation of tho suggestion that Mr. Coates should take up a critical but non-obstructive attitude. Caused no doubt by chagrin because Labour will not necessarily hold the balance of power, it should not deceive anybody. 11l though it may suit the Labour Party, there is a perfectly logical, dignified ami consistent course for Mr. Coates to follow as Leader oF the Opposition, the post that now lies before him.