The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JULY 31, 1925. NOW WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12204, 31 July 1925, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JULY 31, 1925. NOW WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE

The fusion cat is now well out of the bag. The essential facts of the negotiatibiis between the Reformers and the then Liberals have been made known. / , ' ; Frankly and concisely put, fusion failed because the Liberals insisted, as'a.condition, on. immediate reconstruction of the Government. - That was the rock on which the project foundered.! Also, it is interesting to know, as Mr Hawken, one of the Reform delegates,, told' the House yesterday, that the Liberals fixed as the price of amalgamation four, if not .five, portfolios .for themselves. Mr Forbes' was. right when he said that no Liberal'had asked for Cabinet, raiik: for himself, but he omitted to complete the story. It was left-to Mr Hawken to supply the .missing details, which were confirmed by Mr Wilford, the next, speaker. We have no wish to hurt anybody’s feelings, but this ’much may be said: From the outset, the “Times” took the view that the Liberals were prepared to amalgamate only at their own price. No other interpretation could be placed on their insistence on “immediate reconstruction.” According to Mr Hawken, the Reformers “never understood till the very last that the fusion, and reconstruction were to_ be immediate.” The position ;has, hot been altered in the slightest degree by the “offer” made in the House yesterday by Mr. Wilford. In the first place, MNWilfoyd -expresses his readiness to resign the leadership of the. Nationalist-Party. ' is nothing in that gesture of sejfVeffacemeni'; nothing, that is, -which has a real, bearing on fusion" now or hereafter. 'lf the parties joip forces, Mr (Wilford automatically retires from the command; so much is obyipus. The rest of the “offer” is in effect merely the old' prdposal over afeain. It involves the making of a new party “at once, the matter of portfolios fo' be left entirely, with the Prime Minister:*. What is the essential difference between that and .the original proposal? Mr Cciates declared in the beginning against immediate reconstruction >. of the Government, and rightly so. The logical time for that is after: the question has been submitted to the electors, and their decision i ha’S: been given. ■ 1 . - Probably'Mr Wilford is {dding ,-his best, but it savours of a rather pathetic-comedy to continue pressing for fusion with a party which the Liberal-Nationalists,: or the chiefest of them, have condemned so heartily in support of their no-confidence motion. Where is the sincerity? Where the consistency? Where the sense of humour?; the Reformers .are half what Messrs Sjdey, Forbes, and Masters have said of them, no self-respecting patty would con-, sider .for a moment up with them. They should be left to the tender mercies x>f the outraged electorates. 7 We cannot escape the reflection that fusion (at. .a price) has meant confusion to more than one ambitious politician.. ;