THREE-CORNERED POLITICS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6384, 5 December 1907, Page 4

THREE-CORNERED POLITICS.

Tho hope expressed in some quarters that the recent extraordinary incidents in Queensland would tend to the abolitioh of the ‘ 'three-oarnored duel” system is not likely to he realised. Mr Kidston, fresh from his last encounter with the Legislative Council, and before he made tho mistake of resigning, endeavoured to effect a temporary union with Labour, on tbe basis that his party and theirs should, in the probable event of a dissolution and general election, abstain from poaching upon each other’s electoral preserves, with the object of returning an overwhelming majority of those in, favour of democratic rule. Perhaps the request was too comprehensive, possibly it was not comprehensive enough. Mr Kidston, having spoken disrespectfully of Labour at the last ©lection, evidently lacked the courage to propose a permanent fusion of forces, and Labour was in no mood to act in the capacity of a catspaw. Tho terms were rejected with very little ceremony, and the Premier turned for help to the Governor. Ho asked his Excellency to appoint a number of now Councillors, sufficient to carry the Government measures, and when Lord Lamington declined to do this, on the reasonable ground that the Council had not thrown out any measures which the. people at the polls had marked with their particular approval, Mr Kidston resigned. In so acting, he committed a grave tactical blunder; but, curiously enough, what ordinary people would have accepted as evidence of gross ineptitude,! if not of utter political incompetence, brought Labour over to his side on a wave of enthusiasm. In the position wantonly created by Mr Kidston, lay, it might have been thought. Labour’s great opportunity. With a little management tho issue to be put before the country might have been narrowed down to one between the Conservatives and Labour.

It was not to be expected that the Labour members would attach themselves even tompqrarily to Mr Philp, but it might have been anticipated that they would at least put no hindrances in the way of a dissolution. Yet this is what they did, or helped to do, with the most astonishing energy. Though Mr Kidston had openly flouted their organisation by attempting to create a Liberal and Labour party under his own leadership, they joined with him in heaping obloquy upon tho ICing’s representative for acting ,in a perfectly constitutional manner.' Now, however, when it is settled that the dissolution is to take place, and that Mr Philp is to have an opportunity for testing-the fooling of tho country, the Labour party is deserting Mr Kidston and closing up its ranks. It might have 1 eliminated Mr Kidston, and fought a straight-out fight with tho Conservatives, but having done its best to justify Mr Kidston, it can go to the polls now merely as one of three parties. In the manifesto issued last week the Labour party states that it “takes this opportunity to further emphasise ite complete independence of all other parties. It does so because long experience has shown that Labour can rely only upon ite own strength and influence as an organised force. It can have no abiding faith in any of those professedly sympathetic forces which invariably fail to respond to Labour’s call when Labour needs it most.” In these words it defeats the expectations of those who desire a return to the old two-party system, whose sole dependence now is a victory for Mr Philp over both his opponents—an extremely unlikely contingency.