THE UNITED PARTY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20960, 25 February 1930, Page 10

THE UNITED PARTY.

SECESSIONS FROM RANKS. ATTITUDE OF HR JENKINS. FUSION WITH REFORM ADVOCATED. (Special to Daily Times.) t _ AUCKLAND, February 24. ‘lt is both unfair and untrue to say that our dissatisfaction with and secession from the ranks of the Goveminent is due to our disappointed aspirations for Ministerial rank,” said Mr H. R, Jenkins, M.P., for Parnell, commenting upon the statement made by Mr R, W. Hawke, M.P., for Kaiapoi. Mr Hawke had said that the disgruntled members of the party—Messrs H. R. Jenkins, J. S. Fletcher, and W. J. Broadfoot—had become dissatisfied because they were not given portfolios. ’ ' *’' , ou , r „ v< | r y a ttitude of criticism we _ had definitely slammed the door «° ■^ri s^ er * a * rank,” said Mr Jenkins. The United Party is quite satisfied to lose me provided I vote with it,” he continued. “ However, I do not intend to do that. If it is necessary to vote ?? -? _ n 9‘ con fidence motion against the United Party to bring about an agreement with Reform I will not hesitate to record my vote against the party.” If Labour support was to be bought by Labour measures he could not see way clear to support the party. am hoping that the Government will become weakened by my altitude and that_ it may be readier to discuss reason with Reform for the purp"se of fusion,” Mr Jenkins said. “I fear, tow®ver> that the Government will attempt to hold office at any price. The Cabinet would oppose a fusion in any case.” w UNDER FALSE COLOURS.” MR DAVY’S CRITICISM. “The organisation and party now calling themselves ‘ United ’ are sailing, under false colours, and* having apparently stamped out the original movement and its spirit successfully, the only honest thing they can do is to declare their policy openly and select a corresponding name,” said Mr A. E. Davy, former chairman of the Dominion Executive of the United New Zealand political organisation in the course of a statement to-night. . , i “It seems that I have aroused the acting-leader of the United Party (Mr G. W. Forbes),” continued Mr Davy, referring, to the Minister’s reply to the criticism of the business at the caucus on Friday. “Hia reply, as it must necessarily _ be, is studiously evasive, consisting in the main of reflections on myself. His explanation that the men called to the meeting were the recognised ‘ heads ’ of the organisation is most- illuminating, and explains a good deal to me. Apart from Mr Fo’-bes and his paid position there are a number of really important points that the gentle rubbing between Mr Forbes End Mr Hawk© needs some elucidating. Who is telling , the truth? There can be no misapprehension on. the part of Mr Hawke, as his statement was most definite. I say without fear of contradiction that almost the whole tiine of the caucus was occupied with frank criticism of the Leader, the Acting-leader, Cabinet, and its policy on the part of certain members, and with pleading qp the other side. How can this be construed •as 'harmonious'? Possibly Mr Forbes can * explain ’ the following matters, if the meeting decided on such drastic, changes as hinted. Why was not a properly constituted conference .of the‘organisation called, with duly elected delegates? Farther, if the past organisation scheme w’as so bad and unsatisfactory, why was it sanctioned by Cabinet’s own group on the Dominion Executive? Why is it that in reports and statements to the press the organisers of the party state that there was an undercurrent of intrigue and unrest which apparently emanated from Cabinet Ministers themselves? Did the caucus avoid discussing policy matters or current problems for fear of it arriving at any decisions distasteful to the Prime Minister? In point of fact, why was it called at all? The acquiescence of the ‘recognised heads ’ was certain, so why the pretence?”