UNITED PARTY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18501, 24 February 1930, Page 8

UNITED PARTY.

AUCKLAND MEMBER’S POSITION. By Telegraph—Press Association. AUCKLAND, February 22. “I have nothing to discuss. People have been making all kinds of assertions since the caucus. I do not know what authority they may have for them,” said Mr W. J. Broadfoot, M. P., in reply to an inquiry regarding his having left the United Party caucus with Mr Fletcher. Mr Broadfoot merely laughed when it was suggested that he was disgruntled regarding non-inclusion in the Cabinet. Mr Fletcher stated that he intended to confer with his this week, and later would make a statement as promised on the Government’s handling of the unemployment problem.

MR DAVY SPEAKS. "FARCICAL POLITICAL MEETING.” By Telegraph—Press Association. WELLINGTON, February 22. “The United Party conference is possibly the most farcical political meeting ever reported to the public, particularly as the organisation generally were not aware officially that it was to take place,” said Mr A. E. Davy, former chairman of the Dominion Executive of the United New Zealand Ijlitical Organisation in a statement in the course of which he said: — “I note that in a letter sent by Mr Vincent Ward to Messrs McGrath, Lonergan, Berry, Kerr, Burns Sievwright and Henderson,” said Mr Davy, “he stated: I have also written on my father’s instructions to several friends of the Party, as decided at a meeting we had recently in the Cabinet room, asking them to be here on Friday, February 21st.’ It is quite evident therefore that the only ones who were advised that a conference was to take place were the members of the Dominion Executive named above, and the several friends namely—Messrs J. I. Hogan (Independent member for Rankitikei). Stevenson (chairman of Sir Joseph Ward’s committee in Invercargill), S. Solomon K.C. (Dunedin), J. R. Hayward (Christchurch). J. Trevethick (Auckland) R. Masters (Stratford), A. E. Jull (Waipawa). This is the boasted conference of the United New Zealand Political organisation, called to discuss important matters in connection with the organisation. It is a joke to suggest that the conference was representative. No one delegate had been appointed by his branch or centre. The eleminination of heaoquarters oganisation is aimed at. Far from being the happy family gathering Mr Hawke would have us believe, the caucus, according to my information, was the reverse. Mr Forbes attempted to wield the big stick, but it proved weapon of straw. It is rather signi ficant that Mr Broodfoot was one of the founders of the Party, and was its first announced candidate. Criticism evidently is not to be tolerated. That the departure of these members was not regretted is untrue. Is it not a faci that nearly two hours wore taken up with pleading and persuasion by numerous members, including the Independent members for Rangitiki and members of Cabinet? Despite the attempt to whitewash Sir Joseph Ward and the Cabinet there was a stormy under-current throughout the proceedings. Charges, counter-charges and ultimatums were the order of the day. The motion of confidence and loyalty passed by those few devout who were present will prove as valueless as that of sand to the ostrich. Bv the same toker. I notice that the Leader of the Reform Party has been equally busy gathering sand. In a very short time the public will realise that the satements I made recently were founded on facts, and that the need is greater than ever for the public to take a hand and bring these party manoeuvrings and bickerings to an end.”

ACTING-LEADER REPLIES. MEETING NOT A CONFERENCE O 'F PARTY. By Telegraph—Preas Association. WELLINGTON, February 23. Mr A. E. Davy’s statement was referred to the Hon. G. W. Forbes, who. in the absence of the Prime Minister, presided at the recent gathering of Parliamentary membrs of the United Party in Wellington. Mr Forbes stated that the meeting had been called on the instruction of the Prime Minister, and it had been Sir Joseph Ward’s intention to have been present. It was purely a meeting of the Parliamentary members of the Party, and the Dominion executive, together with certain other gentlemen who were recognised heads of the Party in various parts of the country. It was not, nor was it intended to be, a conference of the United Party’s organisation as suggested by Mr Davy. “I can state emphatically that very valuable work was accomplished, particularly in laying down a b&sis for the future reorganisation of the Party, and placing it on a much more satisfactory footing than had been the case during Mr Davy’s tenure of the position of organiser, and later as chairman of the organisation.” “In spite of what took place at the commencement of the meeting, including the not altogether unexpected resignation of one member of the Party, the subsequent proceedings,” said Mr Forbes, “were marked by the utmost harmony,”