The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, JULY 20, 1925. NO ROOM FOR DISUNION.

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, 20 July 1925, Page 8

The Timaru Herald. MONDAY, JULY 20, 1925. NO ROOM FOR DISUNION.

Healed party controversy and i>eiitical confusion llmxiien in place of fusion negotiations. Hast week saw tlie interruption, if not tiie end, of the ‘'exchange 01 notes'' on the question of fusion between the Header of the lleform l J arty and the Header of the Liberal-Labour Party. Opinion in Wellington appears to endorse tlie earner precuotion that fusion is unlikely unless forced upon the anti-socialistic parliamentary representatives by an indecisive verdict at toe forthcoming general election. It is generally agreed, however, that the country favours fusion in spite of tire failure of the politicians to discover a basis of agreement. -Nevertheless, deplorable as it may be, party bickering- and wordy wrangles are becoming- part of the everyday proceedings in Parliament, while the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are' claiming- the title for their respective parties as tho only true Nationalists. In a manifesto issued on Priday evening, Mr VViiford sent out a clarion call to “our friends and supporters in the country and those who- earnestly desire to see stable government assured.” “It has been evident for some time past,” Mr Wilford explains, “that the threeparty system in politics could not continue without detriment to g-ood government in this country.” This is the view of every member of the community who has given serious thought to the menace to political stability facing this country owing to tho division in the ranks of the anliSocialists. Bub the supporters of constitutional g-overnment hardly accept the Header of the LiberalLabour Party as the standardbearer of tho new evangel. Mr Wilford in his manifesto informs the country that his party has decided to “take the lead in this matter.” “With that end in view,” says the manifesto, “and with the belief that the best interests of the country can bo served by such a step being definitely and- immediately taken, we have resolved to proceed with the formation of a National Party.” It is claimed that the Liberal-Labour Party in changing- its name to the National Party is- viewing the situation in no narrow spirit, and it is hoped, Mr Wilford says, that “the new Party will include all shades of political thought -except those ) who axe opposed to the maintenj anc© of constitutional goveraj meat, and will bring- into active I co-operation those wlio desire real progress on sound constitutional lines.” The Liberal-Labour Party claim they “did all that honourable men could do” in the negotiations with the lleform Party for the formation of a new National Party. These negotiations having broken down, Mr Wilford and bis principal lieutenants decided to begin a campaign this week, and it is anticipated that no difficulty will be experienced in finding candidates. The Prime Minister issues a prompt rejoinder to Mr Wilford’s manifesto. “At the first glance,” says Mr Coates, “this move on the part of the Liberal-Labour Party savours of au attempt to steal the thunder of the Prime Minister. It seems to mo that it is an illustration of tho old adage that ‘imitation is the sincerest form of battery.’ The Leader' qf the Opposition has been anticipated by my own declaration of faith, which is nationalism in its broadest sense and purpose.” The Prime Minister sums up by saying- that “there is neither room nor need for two national parties in the Dominion.” We should say in passing, however, that tlie Speech. from llijo Tln-o-ne made no reference to the need for an understanding between the parties standing for moderation in political thought. Presumably, this rather significant omission, which we noted at the time, wao not accidental, since the Prime Minister has displayed no wish lor fusion, before tho results of the impending general election are known. Nevertheless, some point is given to the suggestion that there yet remains a chance that fusion may be consummated, by tho Prime Minister’s rather significant complaint that “tho Leader of the Opposition who lias recently been in communication with me has not apparently deemed it necessary to consult me regarding this latest development in the relations of the two dominant political parties in this community.” If fusion is imnraetieabie> or unlikely, as well-informed Wellington opinion seems to indicate, it can scarcely bo demanded of Mr Wilford that ho should consult the Government before ho embarks upon a campaign in quest of Ministerial office. Hence we are bound to say we do not see the point of the Primei Minister’s complaint. Wo agree with Mr Coates that “ihcro is neither room nor need for two national parties in the Dominion.” Hence the almost universal call for fusion. The country will not tolerate attempts to manoeuvre the political situation in the interests of disunion amongst the forces of moderate political opinion. “YV e believe,” says Mr W ill'ord, “it. pair action) to bo in accord with the true, spirit of Liberalism that stands for democratic. government which the present three-paily system renders impossible.” Against, Mr Wrlford's declaration we have the Labour Parly's amusing' claim that the, mantle of the great, Liberal leaders has descended

upon Messrs Holland and Co., wmia tine Prime Minister as Pearler ox tlie Peterru pariy, meets Mr WiiforU. s maunesto announcing tire lormation ux a new xNannual Party to “include all shades ol political tliougiu, by the issue ox an official declaration that Jre looks lor ward u> seeking a inundate lrom lie people of New Zealand wlren u... eiocxaon takes place. Mr Uouto.-> emphasises inis decision b\ adding- that as Leader ox Ihu Government he wiLL ttien ask tno support oi those who are in favour- ox a pi-ogi-essive and national policy.” Here we have the unique spectacle in New Zealand of three political . parties claiming- to be the embodiment, ol true Liberalism, while the leaders of tlie two dominant paraes advance the light to hold high the torch of nationalism, although there appears to be, no prospect of fusion to def'enu the true spirit of Liberalism against tho onslaughts of the well-organised cohorts of tho advocates of the socialisation ot the means of production, distribution and exchange. Both Mr Coates and Mr Wilford have accurately interpreted the spirit of moderate political thought that there is neither room nor need ter two national parties; in . the Dominion; in other words, the danger of disunion is all too real. Surely-, then, the leaders of the two dominant parties should not find it beyond their capacity to discover a workable basis of fusion that would not only- attract the progressive elements in both parties, but would be acceptable to the great majority of the electors who have lost patience with party wrangling and are determined to select as their parliamentary representatives those candidates who stand for the welfare of the nation rather than the interests of political parties.