UNITED PARTY.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18502, 25 February 1930, Page 8

UNITED PARTY.

ANOTHER ATTACK'BY MR DAVY. By Telegraph— Preas Association ' WELLINGTON, Feb. 24. “The organisation and party now calling themselves United, are sailing undrr: false colours, and having apparently stamped out the original movement and its spirit -successfully, the only honest thing they can do is to declare their policy openly and select a corresponding name,” said Mr A. E. Davy, former chairman of the Dominion Executive of the United New Zealand Political Organisation, in the course of a statement to-night. “It seems that I have aroused the acting Leader of the United Party,” continued Mr Davy, referring to the Minister’s reply to criticism pi the ; business at the caucus on Friday. “His reply, as it must necessarily be, is studiously evasive, consisting in the main of reflections on myself. His explanation that the men called to the meeting were the recognised heads of the organisation, is me t illuminating, and explains a good deal to me. Apart from Mr Forbes and his paid position, there are a number of really important points that arise. First, the gentle rubbing between Mr Forbes and Mr Hawke needs some elucidating. Who is telling the truth? There can be no misapprehension on the part of Mr Hawke, as his statement was most definite. I say without fear of contradict on that almost the whole time of the caucus was occupied with frank criticism of the Leader, the acting Leader. Cabinet, and its policy on the part of certain members, and with pleading on the other side. How can this be construed as harmonious? Possibly, Mr Forbes can explain the following matters: If the meeting decided on such drastic changes as hinted, why was not a properly-con-stituted conference of the organisation called, with duly elected delegates? Further, if the past organisation scheme was so bad and unsatisfactory, why was it sanctioned by Cabinet’s own group of the Dominion Executive? Why is it that, in reports and statements to the Press, the organisers of the organisation state that there was an under-current of intrigue and unrest which ‘ apparently emanated from Cabinet Ministers themselves? Did the caucus avoid discussing policy matters or current problems for fear of it arriving at any decisions distasteful to the Prime Minister? In point of fact, why was it called at all? The acquiescence of the recognised heads was certain, so why the pretence?”