The Daily News SATURDAY, JULY 25, 1931. PARTY CO-OPERATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 July 1931, Page 6

The Daily News SATURDAY, JULY 25, 1931. PARTY CO-OPERATION.

The Reform Party in the Hurunui electorate, with the approval of its provincial and national executives, has dofie a very graceful tiling in deciding not to put forward an official candidate against the Prime Minister. It is a sporting action of the best kind, for the Reformers have realised that Mr. Forbes will be under a Very severe handicap if he has to fight an election campaign for- his own seat. As head of the Government at a time when the country is faced with serious difficulties he can have but little time to devote to his own affairs, and as Prime Minister he will be expected to visit a considerable number of electorates in the interests of his party. And it is pleasing to know that the representatives of Reform not only are willing to leave Mr. fforbes free to attend to his arduous duties but also agree that he has earned re-election. The Canterbury executive of the party has expressed itself very happily in its declaration that “at tho present time it is desirable to retain the services of those Parliamentarians, irrespective of party, who have shown their willingness and ability to take a course of action which will assist in bringing the conditions of our primary and secondary industries into a better state than that unfortunate one in which they stand to-day.” The sentiment is admirable, but how far is its influence to go? At present the Reform Party’s desire to retain the services of tried and trusted Parliamentarians seems to have been satisfied with its complimentary gesture in Mr. Forbes’ direction. True, the United Party has not been behindhand, but with an equally good grace has accorded Mr. Coates the freedom of his own constituency. Yet even two swallows do not make a summer, or, at any rate, any better kind of summer than those which in recent years have inspired so many bitter complaints. And if only two electorates are to have a political summer in November many others will feel that they have been left out in the cold. Is it not possible to extend the operation of the spirit revealed by the Reform and United Parties in their treatment of the leaders? The headquarters of the Reform Party has announced that it already has candidates for nearly all the seats in the Dominion and is now completing the list. The United Party, though it has already offered to sink its identity in a new national party, and has

just reaffirmed its adherence to that proposal, is also choosing candidates. If the result is to be a bitter fight between Reform and United in the majority of the electorates it may be that the aspirations of both parties will be disappointed. The possible outcome is, not merely that Parliamentarians whom the country really desires to retain may be left out, but even that those who may be retained may be .impotent in the face of Labour predominance or such a division of the parties as would preclude a workable agreement. In the latter case a dissolution would be the only way out, and that might be disastrous, for it would mean a substantial addition to the national expenditure, and probably a worse evil—delay in dealing with matters of the grayest concern. Everyone who thinks seriously of the conditions existing to-day understands fully that the Dominion’s greatest need, is stable and sound administration. The two moderate parties in politics arc practically in agreement as to the only possible national policy, yet in a few months, unless a great change occurs, they will be fighting each other in the electorates, and taking the risk of mutual defeat through the Success of other interests. Surely _ the reasonable course to take is either that advocated by Mr. Forbes weeks ago, the establishment of one moderate party, or the extension of the principle applied by the Reform Party to Huruntii and by the United Party to Kaipara. Much good undoubtedly could be done by the adoption of the latter course, each party refraining from contesting certain electorates. But if by that means the United and Reform representatives together were assured of a working majority over those opposing them, there Would still be the difficulty that one or other of those parties would have to take all the responsibilities of office and be dependent upon the goodwill of the other for ability to carry out its programme. The party barrier would still prevent complete co-operation. The better plan would bo the fusion of the two elements in one party, which would pursue one definite objective. In this way the whole of the strength of those who believe that economical administration and sound financial policy are essential could be concentrated on the one national task. The good sense of those constituting the new organisation would be sufficient to ensure the right choice* of leaders, who could tackle their job with the confidence inspired by their knowledge of the solidarity of the party behind them. That is the only truly national way of meeting a national emergency.