THE COMING ELECTIONS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5697, 16 October 1896, Page 6 (Supplement)

THE COMING ELECTIONS.

(Watrarapa Star.)

The coming elections seem only to increase tbe. wailful howl of the Opposition. The tactics of -the Opposition for the past three years have been those of cavilling at every measure taken in- hand by the Government. This may be regarded as a natural outcome of pa.rty politics. Yet it is a policy that is doomed to kill itself. Perpetual antagonism, when carried to an extreme pitch grows monotonous, and in the end disgusts more than it attaches. Tlie pulling to pieces, the detection of flaws in any measure, is a far easier task than the pointing out of a superior policy. The Opposition Party, vehemently denouncing the Government as the incarnation of all that is bad," often even in the face of contrary facts, appeal to the country for support. They advance no policy for -which they can claim superiority. Their whole claim to power is based on their being in opposition to the Government. Their mistakes in the past are ingeniously concealed from the view of the public. But has. the Opposition any claim on the .people ? There have been failures and mistakes in the policy of the present Government. Many measures have been passed which have been far from successful when put into operation. Still, the Government — despite the Opposition denunciation — have done much good for the people. Their task 3 have been far from easy, and they have tackled them with energy and fearlessness instead of. passing them by for some f uture Cabinet to deal with. When the Liberal Party first came into power six years ago, the great democratic question, woman's suffrage, loomed big on the political horizon. The question was immediately grappled with, and another step advanced on the pathway of democratic legislation. The Midland Eailway and the Bank of New Zealand were obstacles skilfully negotiated. Looking at the latter question with' the light of two. years' subsequent ' events' thrown on it;/ it iriay be ,;said that the Government could have done better. Possibly so, but unfortunately they could not look on the question with the same knowledge begot of subsequence, as we can at the present time. The "ruinous socialistic policy" of breaking up the big estates and putting the people on the land is a strong plank for the Conservatives. The Government will at once admit that it is against the Fat Man's interest, but every day it becomes clearer that it is the people who are to govern the land for themselves, not the Fat Man for them. The aim of the Government is that the productiveness of the land shall be enjoyed by the many and not by the few. The Opposition policy in the past has been the converse, in that the taxation fell on the small men and not on the large. The graduated land tax and absentee tax altered this. The dealing with the Prohibition question by sundry licensing acts and amendments can be of little practical good. Far better to have boldly grappled with the question by placing it under the direct control of the State. This may yet come. However the Opposition 'may carp, they cannot disguise that the Government has worked for the ueople. Would the Opposition have done the same? Is the Opposition policy a continuance of the Government one, or is it the repeal of the' graduated land and absentee tax, the rescinding of the "land for the people" policy, and the substitution of the property tax and unlimited accumulation of land. The Opposition are on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot consistently agree to the former, and their chance of power vanishes if they, boldly advocate the latter. ' No wonder they are silent as to their platform. They dread the return of the present Government, for this portends more " socialistic measures," and possibly at no remote date the removal, of indirect and the substitution of direct taxation in the form of an unearned increment tax. The people have to choose between a party which, with all its faults, has done more in their interests than any previous Government, and whose policy is progress and a party who have no policy and whose interests cannot truly be those of the masses of the people.