THE FARMERS’ UNION AND POLITICS.

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 55, Issue 3929, 21 July 1937, Page 6

THE FARMERS’ UNION AND POLITICS.

AT the annual Dominion conference of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union in Wellington last week the following resolution was adopted as a plank in the Union’s platform: “The New Zealand Farmers’ Union places principle before party, and supports no political organisation, but it reserves the right to criticise the legislation of any political party.” This is as it should be. The trouble with the Farmers’ Union has ever been the want of unity on certain subjects. These subjects are not necessarily always political, but only too often they are, either directly or indirectly. With a union of such a community as the farmers there must of necessity be widespread differences of political opinion. One might almost as well expect a unity of religious belief to be found in callings of any kind. Farmers are not collectively interested in any particular party policy. Exception may be made of the present Government’s policy of guaranteed prices for butter, but even that will not make the farmers as a body supporters of the Labour Government. If at the end of this Government’s term of office the guar anteed price has proved a success, and is satisfactory to the majority of farmers, the Opposition candidates will take the hustings quite prepared to pledge themselves to support the retention of that Act on the statute book. This will be so in the country districts at least. Should the Opposition prevail at the next general election it will not dare to remove a popular enactment. Therefore there is no need for the Farmers’ Union to become a political organisation to retain the guaranteed price should it wish to do so. Why the Union should reserve itself the right to criticise is not quite clear. Every member has the right to criticise, but there is no more likelihood of the members of the Union being unanimous in their criticism than in their preference for one political party or the other. Criticism is always helpful if it be true and honest, but criticism of the carping kind such as is too often found in our daily papers is not helpful, and is not meant to be helpful. It is ■criticism with intent to prejudice the public mind irrespective of the true merits of the case—that is to say that prominence is given to a very small

fault, and no praise given for a meritorious effort. We presume that the criticism the Farmers’ Union proposes to reserve unto itself the right of exercising will be on measures or clauses therein brought before the House. It seems that here there will be no unity. It will have to be left to the individual to vote as he pleases if the Union is to be strictly non-poli tical.