LABOUR AND GOVERNMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20496, 22 February 1930, Page 10

LABOUR AND GOVERNMENT.

The Parliamentary Labour Party, having sat in caucus, has issued what appears superficially and is undoubtedly meant to appear to be a comprehensive indictment of the Government. It is long and categorical ; much of it is justified by fact, even if it comes incongruously from the party which all last session maintained the - Government in a position that has enabled it to do these things ; but it is too voluminous to traverse in detail. One or two points must be selected for consideration. First there is Samoa. The party repeals with variations the things which Mr. Holland said so unweariedly about Samoa when the last Government was in power, thereby undoubtedly depriving his party of whatever chance it had of returning strong enough to be the next choice for office. Has his party really estimated how many antiReform votes that were waiting to be won Mr. Holland's attitude toward Samoa cost it at the last eleo tion 1 Apparently not, since it allows him to continue. The statement proceeds to denounce most of the financial acts of the Government, but remains discreetly silent concerning the most pernicious, the increase of taxation on everybody by the primage duty and on one section by the land and income tax legislation, the bitter fruit of which is now being tasted by the men on the land just when they are also faced with a serious decline in the prices of their staple products. The Labour Party has no word of blame about these things ; neither does it promise any relief for those oppressed by them. It cannot, because it is indelibly branded with the responsibility of having helped to bring them about. By its endorsement of the Government's borrowing and extravagant railway construction policy, it has helped to bring about the financial position for which it seeks to blame the Government and the banks in conjunction. If there is any bracketing for blame, it must be the Government and the Labour Party. This it will not recognise, but seeks in every way to hide it. There lies the clue to the whole statement. On the face of it, the Labour Party cannot consistently continue to keep the United Party in office. Therefore it is paving the way for a no-confidenco motion, which it hopes the Reform Party will not find it possible to support. With it defeated, the Labour Party will claim it is no longer responsible for keeping the Government in power, and, if it had its way, this or that or something else would be done. It is an adroit tactical plan, but has two weaknesses. First, the country is not certain to be blinded by the dazzle of Labour's protestations ; second, the Reform Party may decide to upset the Labour Party's calculations and play its cards so that the outcome will be an appeal to the electors. With these weak spots realised, the.statement sounds much less impressive.