THE “NEW" PARTY

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12196, 22 July 1925, Page 8

THE “NEW" PARTY

CHANGING THE NAME jHAT SOME OF THE PAPERS THINK “LAST OF THE LIBERALS" Ie announcing his own and his Parliamentary followers’ decision to. form a “new party” with the name of “National” and “as Bitch, with a constructive policy,” Mr Wilford has given Liberalism a summary burial (says the “New Zealand Herald”)., Henceforth, he ha 9 determined, it vanishes from the Dorrtinion’s politics. The declaration makes strange reading after his pronouncement of some months ago. Then the fiery cross was sent out through all New Zealand in the name of Liberalism. How heartily the faithful responded, and how much credence can safely bo given to any proclamation' he may make about a great following, can be judged from this sudden announcement of a new party, under a new banner and with a new policy. It cannot be said that he has been over-sensitive about the obsequies of the old party. It surelv deserved decent interment, in full light of day and to the accompaniment of solemn requiems and an oration or' two in his best style. In- * stead, a party-caucus has met in secret and hurriedly disposed of its illustrious dead. Paraphrasing a familiar narrative of a burial accomplished un,der stress, he and his followers may Well tell the astounded country— Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note, As its corse to the rampart we hurried; 1 Not a soldier discharged a farewell shot O’er the grave where our party was buried. With such inadequate ceremony, "unwept, nnhonoured and unsung, Liberalism has been put under the sod. Not even an epitaph written in caucus resolution: “we carved not a line and we raised not a stone”; nor even any guard ‘left to prevent misguided bodysnatchers from disinterring the corpse to put it to unauthorised uses. To such impetuous heedlessne63 of the sanctity due to the dead may thw exigencies of disastrous campaigning impel even the most -swashbuckling of politicians.. “THE SAME OLD PARTY” “LIBERALISM BROUGHT INTO DISREPUTE.” He (Mr Wilford) has come out with the announcement that his party has changed its name to “the National Party,” and intends to begin a campaign this week to rouse the country (says the Christchurch “Press”). That this amusing decision should strike him and hie colleagues as a good one is what might have been expected* We peed not delay here to point out what Events will quickly _enough make obviqus, namely, that the Reform Party is the National Party, that its appeal is to the whole nation, and / that it is to the Reform Party that moderate men of progressive outlook have been looking, and will continue to look, for a national policy and administration. . . .Liberal and Liberalism are in themselves great and potent words, but the finest name loses its power to please and attract when it connotes what is petty, perverse, and shallow. And it tells us almost all we need. to know concerning Mr Wilford and his Liberal colleagues, that they have brought the fine old name of Liberal into such disrepute that even “the heirs of Seddon and Ballance” realise that it is a serious handicap to anybody seeking the goodwill of the electors. “TIT-WILLOW” AND THE LIBERAL LEADER. The Wanganui “Chronicle” quotes thq tom-tit saying in “The Mikado” where the unfortunate bird “sobbed, sighed, .'and a gurgle he gave, then threw himself into the billowy wave.” “So the little tom-tit cast himself .into ’ the river and was drowned (continues thepaper). It is a coincidence ' that Mr Wilford’s baptismal name is Thomas. It would be rather impolite, perhaps, to carry the allegory further, and inquire whether his trouble was due to some cerebral disorder, or a gastronomioal disturbance, and it migbt.be straining the limits of prophecy to the breaking-point if we were seriously to suggest that if he remains in his.-present condition he may conceivably drown himself in the river of political destiny. But there is a singular appositeness’in the story, ana we invite Mr Wilford to study it. “MOTLEY’S THE ONLY WEAR” POLITICAL HARAKIRI. As the Thespian Leader of the old Liheral Party, Mr T. M. Wilford has worked out a dew play for it, reserving for. himself, of course (though he scarcely deserves it), the leadingrole (says Christchurch “Sun”). Those who know him best will find it easy imaginatively to hear him cry m .his most impressive stage manner: Invest me in my motley; give me leave to speak" my mind, and 1 will through and through cleanse the foul body of the infected world.” It is entertaining mummery, but the country really wants something better than childish politics. .... After a quarter ot a century in the game of party politics. Mr Wilford might have been expected to have -demonstrated,* better w'sdra" in tactics. He has failed lamentably as a leader, and can merely show, after six years’ exercise of leadership, tne ' necessity for committing political harakiri without the dignity which usually Characterises that Nipponese sacrifice. “A POLITICAL MOVE”, LIBERAL PAPER’S ADVICE TO LIBERALS. , Liberals will find Mr Wilford’s new move difficult to understand (says- the Auckland “Star”). It should he judged bv the intentions of the leader and the party, fie well as bv what the manifesto actually says. If he means to combine the title “Liberal” with the new word “National.” and to bring out a vigorously progressive policy,* Liberals will support him, though they may see no justification for any change in a name that has won so much glory, and is still the only possible rallying cry for the man who can accept neither Connorvatism nor tho Labour cro«d'. If Mr Wilford proposes to drop the word “Liberal” there will be protests from all over New Zealand. “Liberal” means * great deal: “National” means nothing. Moreover, tho Liberal Party in Parliament surely has not forgotten the National Association of thirty years ago. . . If the Liberals wish to preserve their entity they will lie rontcnt with Liberalism, and not seek after a nebulous “Nationalism” which may he a cloak for Conservatism. The Liberal Party in the House of Commons is proportionately much weaker than the partv in our Parliament, hut the British Liberal* are not seeking to destroy tbumselve*. Tliev are trying hard to recover lost ground. Nothing would please Reform better than a weakening

♦•**»• *** *** *£ ♦** *** *)£ *** *•* of the political expression of Liberalism in New Zealand. The Liberal Party in Parliament should note this satisfaction and avoid feeding it. "A UNIQUE SPECTACLE” WORKABLE BASIS OP FUSION? Here we have the unique spectacle in New Zealand of three political parties claiming to be the embodiment of true Liberalism (says the Timaru “Herald”), while the leaders of the two dominant parties advance the right to hold high the torch of nationalism, although there appears to be no prospect of fusion to defend the .true spirit of Liberalism against the onslaughts of the well-organised cohorts of the advocates of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Both Mr Coates and Mr Wilford have accurately interpreted the Spirit of moderate political thought that there is neither room nor need tor two national paj;ties in the Dominion; in other words, the danger of disunion is all too real. Surelv, then, the leaders of the two dominant parties should not find it beyond their to discover a workable basis of fusion that would not only attract the progressive elements m both parties, but would be acceptable to the great majority of the electors who have lost patience with party wrangling and are determined. to select as their Parliamentary representatives those candidates who stand for the iwelfare of the nation rather than •the interests of political parties.