POLITICAL

Te Aroha News, Volume XLI, Issue 6602, 21 May 1925, Page 8

POLITICAL

FUSION OR CONFUSION

(From the New Zealand Times)

Before ever Mr Massey was laid aside, there was talk of a ReformLiberal fusion. Labour, it was felt and feared, threatened to dominate the political situation. The more tolerant of Reformers and Liberals, perturbed at the possibilities, discussed a get-together scheme. The death of Mr Massey and the announced retirement of Sir Heaton Rhodes have provided the fusionists with a new excuse for further eloquence. Our evening contemporary has joined in the cry. It urges that every reasonable attempt should be made by the Reformers to establish a “modus vivendi with the Liberals before Parliament meets for its real session.” The Lyttelton Times talks editorially along like lines. There is something to be said in favour of a fusion. On absolute essentials, the Reform and Liberal policies disclose only unimportant of unpractical differences. The last nanjed include proportionalism and rural credits. But however sharply they may separate Jon those questions, the Government and the Opposition are united in this; they want no Socialism of the brand which the Labour Party is offering to sell to the country—for votes, of course. To all but Mr Holland and his following, the Socialist programme is unacceptable, and for the best of good reasons. Those facts notwithstanding, we are unable to agree that fusion is either an immediate necessity or a probability; rather the reverse. It is known that a majority of the Government is opposed to the idea. It is equally true that a section of the Liberals is of the same mind. In each instance, the antifusionists feel inclined to risk their fortunes on the next political throw. They are prepared to “chance their luck” at the next appeal to the constituencies—whenever that may be. Which brings us to this point: When there is little unanimity in the House in support of fusion, the fit and proper thing to be done is to allow the people to express their opinion on the subject. The electors are theoretically the final arbiters. The choice of administrators rests with them. Where, then, the non-Socialist parties differ as to the desirability or otherwise of what the Evening Post calls a modus vivendi, the obvious course is to refer the matter to the electors.

That is to say, fusion may well wait until after the approaching General Election. If the outcome of that test is a state of affairs in which no party has a majority—which is extremely likely—it will be time for the Reformers and Liberals, or the more reasonable of them, to discuss fusion in real earnest.

It has been suggested in some quarters that an early election is required to clear the air and will probably be precipitated. Again we disagree. The average politician, being what he is, prefers to be sure than sorry. So far as he is concerned, no harm can ensue by waiting until the appointed time, or thereabouts, to go before the people. It will mean that for a few months longer his pay will be assured, and with your professional M.P. that counts for much. Another factor operating against a rush election is this: it is questionable whether any of the parties is quite ready to take the field at short notice.

There will be no need for Parliament to sit longer than is necessary to transact urgent formal business. The co-operation of Liberals and Labour will be necessary, but, that being available, the House should adjourn shortly, leaving the parties free to commence their campaign.