Who Will Unite the Twins ?

NZ Truth, Issue 1017, 23 May 1925, Page 5

Who Will Unite the Twins ?

They, or the Electors? ■ .. ■ j Reformers and Liberal-Laborites Play Chess Motive of Fusion Not "to Dish Labor," But to Provide Fair Fight, and Simplify the Labels

-National interests require that the Reform caucus should be speedily convened to elect a Leader, with full authority to negotiate for reunion of the Reform and the Liberal-Labor Parties — a reunion motived by similarity of principle and not by a mere desire to "dish Labor."

Party interests— and factional interests within the parties — may make, for delay. Some of the Reformers might sooner go to an immediate triangular general election than parley with tho Liberals; and some of the Liberals. might like to wait until the Reform . Government gets into deep water m the House and calls .for help. But it is hoped that the bulk of Reform opinion will be ori the side of reasonably exploring the possibilities of reunion (or of co-operation) with the Liberal-Labor Party.- Election of a Reform Leader must be the first step. . , If the two parties are not fused by themselves, they will probably be fused by the electors. But triangular voting is confused voting, and is therefore to be avoided. It is now announced that the Reform caucus will meet next week. So; far, so good. If a Leader is elected, he will have a real chance' to make history.

At time of writing, the proposal to resolve the thi*ee-'party situation into a two-party situation halts, because everybody is waiting- for everybody ,else to move. The Liberal-Labor Party is waiting for the Reform Party. . '... The people below m the Reform Party are waiting for a sigh from the people on top; and the "on tops" are waiting for the "belows." Ditto m the Liberal-Labor Party. Wanted— Reform Leader. It is said, rightly or wrongly) that Sir Francis Bell, the interim Prime Minister, is. against Reform and Lib-eral-Labor coming together. Whether this is true or not, the idea tends to hesitation and delay. People are saying that nothing much can be done until the Reform caucus appoints the permanent' Reform Leader. And it certainly would be well if the Reform' caucus, to meet next week, were to proceed with all reasonable i speed to make the appointment. The

only circumstance militating' against an early selection of the Reform Leader seems to be an element of doubt as to the health (that, the availability), of Mr. W. JDownie Stewart, now under treatment; m the United States. But although this more or less un known factor of Mr. Downie. Stewart 1 ? -health is of the upmost importance, it is tfet - more important Hha t Reform should not continue long under an interim Leadership; and to that principle Mr. ifownie Stewart himself, if left to his 'own judgment, would no doubt readily subscribe. Prom the national point of view, then, the best course would be to convene the Reform caucus and appoint the Leader. The Leader could then take what steps he might deem necessary to end the three-party system or to mitigate the evils thereof: (clashing candidatures and split votes). The Leader might need. the help of an empowering resolution passed by the, Reform caucus. It would, at any rate strengthen his hand. How to Bpeak the Ice. There are various ways m which the ice could be broken as between the Reform and the Liberal-Labor Parties. Each side might appoint a committee, with power to find a common platform (probably not a huge task), or (m lieu of amalgamation) a -common campaign plan. Means would present themselves if once the ice were broken. .' What we have just written we have written as from a national point of view. National interests can be served by a straight-forward plan. < Unfortunately, the same cannot always be said of party and personal interests. Always, with parties and personal ambitions, there is a large amount of manoeuvring for position. Political chess makes for delay, at any rate where little men call the moves. And just now everybody, trom the' knights to the pawns, has, got on his thinking cap. . There may be some men so antifusionist that they would even seek to prolong the present interim regime, if doing so meant blocking the ententevmovement. , • There are some \ Reformers who think that the .best way of finding out whether the Liberal-Laborites are worth making terms with is to hold a general election. They think that if the Liberal-Laborites emerge from this test of the "survival of the fittest," then let fusion proceed. Apparently they are prepared to take the risk of Reform's fitness (or unfitness) to fight a triangular election. To such Reformers the idea of an early election, cutting out the third I session of the existing Parliament, I commends itself. They fear the ses- [ sion because of the thinness of the Reform majority and the risk of new I secessions. But, so far as can be 1 learned, these "early election" ReI formers are of limited influence. I Lysnars — and Wittys. I Again, on the Liberal-Labor side I there are certain people who think to I gain by those same factors as the I "early/ election" Reformers fear. Ac--1 cording to this section, the trend 'of ■ events m Parliament will soon put the ■ Reformers m a position that will.comIpel them to make some sort .of terms ■with the Liberal-Laborites. "Reform ■ (they say) has its Lysnars." (But ■does the non-Reform side of the ■House contain any' more Wittys?) M Whether these tacticians read the ■situation rightly or not, their influence Knakes for delay. And the prospect ■)f retardation would be considerable Hyere it not that the main body of ■Reform opinion seems to be set on Selecting a Leader with all reasonable I ■peed. And "Truth" hopes and beReves that, when the Leader is elected, ■ c will take a national rather than a Manoeuvring view. H It may not be "smart tactics," but H; would be statesmanlike if the new Mleform Leader, instead of contenting with a mere caucus resolution Hmrming the principle of progressive jttunion (as m 1923), were to proceed definite negotiations with the Lib-Hral-Labor Party. If Reform apHbinted negotiating delegates, so, no Hpubt, -would the Liberal-Laborites. Hid wfey sst? ' ■ y""-- >. ■■'■. -\

The main purpose of a Reform-Lib-eral reunion would not be to defeat Official Labor; its main purpose would be to remove party-redundancy, to abolish a confusing distinction that is not backed by a substantial difference. The existence of two parties riot ' dissimilar m principle is confusing to the voter; it is against; the proper classification of politicians m the public' eye; it is' contrary to common sdnse. - The cause of sincerity m political, life would be helped by reunion.- If Labor is to provide this country with a Government, far better it is that a Labor Government should emerge ( with a clear majority . from ' a two-party system than that it should hold office by such doubtful expedients as sustained, m 1923, the present Reform Administration. If the whole and sole purpose of Reform- Liberal' reunion were to defeat Labor, then it would not matter whether ',or not Reform and Liberal principles are identical. If a fusionist were motived by the mere consideration of uniting . two parties so as to outnumber a third, he would set about securing identity of principle as a mere means to a tactical end. But the facts are such that - the fusionist does not need to go to work to procure identity. In broad principle he finds it waiting for him. He merely extends it from principle to organisation. He follows a logical consequence, to which the fighting of Official Labor is incidental. His way would be. barred if there were a vital issue fencing off the Reform and Liberal Parties from each other. A 'Labor Government. A fairly good indication that the principal purpose of fusion is not "to dish Labor" is found m the tolerable certainty that a Labor Government will come m due course. Few people doubt it. "Truth" considers that, sooner or later, a Labor Government will arise, and that it will be needed. It will be necessary to the Labor Party as well as to the country. The recent British Labor Government was a self-revela-tion to the British Labor Party. Labor is not a solidarity but a duality. Its place m political evolution is to be decided riot by its periods of Opposition but by its periods of Office-hold-ing. . » Fusion of the Reform and LiberalLabor Parties m New Zealand might riot "prevent the election of a' Labor Government even m 1925. But fusion would help it to gain" cleaner credentials. ■ . The alternative to fusion is confu~ sion, the moral effect of which, on the voter as well as on the politician, is bad. ' As to the personal factor, cannot New Zealand politicians take a hint from the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, who — his generosity rising above the quarrels over the war-time Prime Ministership— has named Mr. Lloyd George as one of the Big Five of the War?