THE THREE OPPOSITION PARTIES.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5518, 19 March 1896, Page 4

THE THREE OPPOSITION PARTIES.

(From the Lytt eltcn Times.) It ia not often that a psychological problem obtru-.-es itself into the realm of politics ; but such is distinctly the case at present, when the Ministerial Party in New Zealand is confronted with the enigma of three separate political divisions forming one Opposition. The whimsical conception of "three single gentlemen rolled into one" is simplicity itself compared with the bewildering puzzle of three distinct agglomerations of electoral atoms constituting a political party. For this reason the elucidation offered by the Premier in his Nelson address ought to be welcomed by all students of baffliag phenomena. The three parties in the Opposition are nominally the Prohibitionists, the Conservatives and the Nationalists. Whether these are a mystic three in one. or a duality of the Siamese-twin type, or a perfect political unit, are questions upon which a diversity of opinion obtains. Mr Seddon has helped to a solution of the problem by his clear and convincing identification of the Nationalists with the Conservatives. "A. band of Tories " is perhaps not the most polite way of describing the highly - respectable gentlemen who constitute the National Association ; but it is courtesy itself compared with such epithets as " gang or robbers " and " political adventurers " which the Conservatives have applied to the Ministry, and the accuracy of the description in one case is a justification that is entirely absent in the other. There remain, then, but two parties in the Opposition — the Prohibition and the Conservative led, respectively, by Sir Eobert Stout and Captain Eusseil — and the pressing question of the hour is : WiLbthey form a coalition or will the weaker be merged in the stronger ? Mr Seddon has shrewdly put his finger on a significant sign of the times, in the fact that no Conservative journal of standing has said a word by way of comment on Captain Eussell's Hastings address. On the other hand, they all had long and laudatory articles on Sir Bebert Stout's recent Wellington speech. Several of them have even given extended notices of a commendatory character to the very commonplace utterances of Mr Earnshaw, Sir Bobert's faithful lieutenant. Some months ago we had from t\ie Conservative Press the assurance that soon " many speakers from many platforms " would deliver a concerted attack on the. Government policy. Captain Eusseil and his political allies have made no sign, but the report has been circulated by the Opposition, journals that Sir Eobert Stout is about to tour the colony from end to end in prosecution of a political campaign. What do these facts portend ? By many they are held to indicate the ascendency of Sir Eobert and the retirement of Captain Russell. The Premier declares that they prove the existence of "a Stout-Russell combination," but we do not agree witn Mr Seddon's conclusion. The Conservatives are doubtless angling most sedulously, with all the skill they possess, to secure an alliance with the prohibitionists ; but such an unnatural union seems to us to be altogether out of the question. In the meantime the friends of Captain Eussell are pursuing their old policy of flattering the vanity of Sir Robert and his faithful few, in order to encourage them in their Quixotic effort to form a third party in the State. That, we think, is the true explanation of the prominent notice given by Opposition journals to the addresses of Sir Eobert Stout and MrEarnshaw. Both devices of the Conservatives must fail; the first because a coalition between the party of stagnation and the prohibitionists is impossible, the other because the pretence is too transparent to conceal the ultimate design, which is to divide the Liberal . vote and secure the return of a number of Conservatives at the coming general election. It may suit the Opposition meanwhile to affect apathy and to encourage the belief that the Conservative Party proper is on its last legs, discredited by the frivolous ineptitude of its leader and discouraged by its numerical weakness in Parliament and in the country ; but the activity of the National Association, which is simply a collection of Conservative election committees, betrays the real intentions of the party. When the election draws near the " National " batteries will be unmasked and willbemannedby Conservatives, strenuously fighting for the return of candidates pledged to follow Captain Eusseil. The Conservatives display an almost childish delight over what they imagine to be the success of their tactics. These tactics are, as we have said, to pretend to be asleep, and to secretly sow sedition in the Liberal ranks. We do not pretend for a moment that they can be treated with contempt ; indeed, we realise that it is only by recognising the full significance of the " National " ruse and the Prohibitionist diversion that the Liberals can secure the full advantage of their superior numbers. The Premier's emphatic contradiction of the report that the Ministerialists and Prohibitionists have agreed to combine their forces, taken in conjunction with his challenge to Sir Eobert Htout, indicates that the Government intends to adhere to its policy of " moderation" on the liquor question. This by no means shuts out the possibility of a very good modus vivendi being arrived at between the two sections of the Liberal Party, and such an understanding we still consider to be more probable than an alliance of the temperance reformers with the party that captured "the trade" vote at the Christiihurch bye-election, and so secured the defeat of the two Liberal candidates. It ia fortunate that this is rather a local than a colonial question. Christchurch is the headqunrters of the prohibition movement, and its friends here are inclined to over-estimate their own strength. We believe, however, that a majority of them are reasonable men, who will see that it is quite impossible, at preaeut at any rate, to force tho whole of their programme upon, a reluctant constituency. They have already se-

cured enormous concessions from the Liberals— more than they even hoped for a year or two ago— and if they have any real regard for the progressive measures they have associated with their pet reform they will refuse to assist the tactics of a party tbat has consistently opposed every proposal for the enlargement of the functions and powers of the people.