COALITION GOVERNMENT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIX, Issue 21958, 9 May 1941, Page 6

COALITION GOVERNMENT

Sir—At the outset may I commend to Mr O' J. F. McKee Mr Churchill’s injunction to public servants respectin’ verbosity? Truly, Mr McKee has said a lot and still said very little. Very little that is Intelligible, anyway. But he emphasised the writer’s lack of discernment, so, a la Burns and Allen ‘maybe I'm wrong.’ His superfluity bewilders me. However, by reiteration he stresses some telling points of my previous letter, and r thank you for the double publication. He says I am not conversant with the relationship between cause and effect. May I refute this by a little illustration? Mr McKee sets out to ‘cause’ dissension between two political parties—or is it three? The ‘effect’ of his meanderings is simply amusement, tinged with ridicule. Except by persons ‘agin’ everything constitutional he will not be taken very seriously. With a peculiar naivete he undertakes to help me out by giving my remarks his own interpretation. Incorrect, of course, but entertaining, and essentially O. J. F. McKee. His chaotic impressions give one the idea that he considers the only two worthwhile political parties are orthodox, and therefore capitalistic—and therefore undesirable. In his ‘classnature of capitalist society rival economic group’ hotchpotch, he may be likened to a rabbit running against a netting fence. The rabbit fancies there may be a hole somewhere, and gets terribly bewildered in his efforts to find it. True enough, the hole may be there, but this is not a particularly sophisticated rabbit, and he gets played out before getting anywhere. It will be noted that Mr McKee in his last letter avoids any direct reference to J. A. Lee’s outlawed Labour faction. Incidentally, I think the term ‘outlaw’ as distinctive from ‘capitalist,’ will appeal to Mr McKee. May we soon expect to have Karl Marx quoted? Perhaps he has been quoted. Extremists are always difficult to understand. Finally, perhaps I should thank Mr McKee for what he terms “exposure of my limitations in economic science.” This stricture, coming from such a source, suggests that I may get some support from those whose opinions I value. —I am, etc., R. W. ANDERSON. Timaru, May 8.

Sir,—Misunderstanding seems to

have crept into your correspondence column and is confusing both Mr Anderson and Mr McKee. I may be able to clarify the position. In a recent leading article you advocated the mergence *of two schools of New Zealand political thought in order to form a Coalition Government. As dissatisfaction is evidently felt by a minority owing to non-coalition, greater dissatisfaction may, with reason and equal justification, be anticipated from the majority of electors if your suggested course is adopted, and what tenacity would be added to our determination to uphold democratic principles which embody government by and for the people on the voice of the people is not evident. It was I who gave the opinion that to advocate disregard of the decision of the people is equivalent to questioning the intelligence of an unquestionably large majority of them which on two successive occasions left no doubt regarding its preferred controlling policy. Your article conveyed no aspersion on New Zealand’s intelligence, but ny advocacy of Coalition, doubt is concomitantly cast as to our yet being sufficiently evolved to be entrusted with the responsibility of choosing and electing our own Government. The source of. confusion should be easily traceable in the foregoing.—l am, etc., G. V. HOOPER. Timaru, May 8. It this argument were sound, which It is not, there should have been no National Government In Great Britain.—Editor, "Timaru Herald."