REFORM PARTY AND FUSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20866, 7 May 1931, Page 8

REFORM PARTY AND FUSION.

The refusal of the Reform Party to join in the foundation of a new party and the formulation of a new policy has apparently caused some distress among the advocates of fusion, including those whose endorsement of the proposal dates from the publication of Mr. Forbes' manifesto and is in striking contrast with their previous disapproval of any amalgamation of the parties. There are signs that an attempt will be made to throw the whole responsibility for the failure of the Government's overtures upon the Reform Party. Already it has been suggested chat the idea of fusion was advanced by the Reform Party, the implication being that the Government made its offer with some expectation that it would lie accepted. No one, who has watched the course of political events in the last two years will be misled by such sophistry. The idea of fusion has been repeatedly advanced during the last seven months, the most curious feature of this agitation being its persistence in spite of the lack of any public encouragement from either party. There has never been any reason for misunderstanding the attitude of the. Reform Party. All the pressure in favour of fusion was directed at it, and on several occasions the attack became so insistent that Mr. C'oatcs was constrained to define his party's position. His statements were always positive disclaimers of any sympathy with the movement and of any disposition to enter into associations with a party whose attitude toward him and his associates had been consistently marked by rancorous animosity. Whence, then, came the inspiration for this constant agitation 1 The only reasonable explanation is that it was prompted by the United Party itself or by zealous agents of the organisation, who realised that its survival depended entirely upon the discovery of some escape from its humiliating dependence upon the Labour Party. Ostensibly the United Party held aloof from the public advocacy of fusion, but its intimacy with some of the exponents of the plan could not be completely concealed, and it would bq surprising if these visible manifestations of activity were merely indiscretions, and not evidence of systematic manoeuvring. In the end, the decisive move was made by Mr. Forbes, who, confessing that his Government could not deal satisfactorily with the problems confronting it, appealed to Mr. Coates to help it to avoid the logical consequences of such a predicament. The Reform Party has replied that it

cannot subscribe to "a new policy," that the proper course is to deal with urgent and essential measures and then give the electors the opportunity to decide the future policy of the country. To any impartial observer, that would appear to be the most reasonable as well as the democratic course to follow. It has certainly far more merit than the unnecessary and artificial device of a fusion, which, during the life of the present Parliament, could not accomplish any more than the form „>f co-operation proposed by Mr. Coates. And when this Parliament is dissolved, it will be the United Party that will have to discover "a new policy" if it is to justify its perpetuation.