THE WAIPA POST. Printed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. THURSDAY, 21st JUNE, 1934. UNITY BEFORE PARTY.

Waipa Post, Volume 48, Issue 3482, 21 June 1934, Page 4

THE WAIPA POST. Printed on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. THURSDAY, 21st JUNE, 1934. UNITY BEFORE PARTY.

THE conditions of the last three years have played right into the hands of the political opportunists, and with the approach of another session it becomes evident that every adversity will be used in an endeavour to discredit the Government. It is perhaps true that no Government ■was ever so good that it could not be bettered after it had been in power for two years. Especially might that be said of a Government like the National Government, which was formed in a hurry with scarcely a regard to the party labels of its' members. Time may have served to reveal misfits and incompatibilities, and the combination hurriedly put together to meet an emergency may need overhauling. In a Party Government, and in ordinary times, a politician may acquire a sort of prescriptive right to office, but not in a National Government which deserves its name. Even if, therefore, an overhaul of Government may be desirable or necessary, it does not follow as a logical consequence that the discontents should be allowed to uproot the whole structure of a Government which is national in character.

Wie cannot have failed to notice the many subtle methods Employed of late to destroy confidence in administration. These are glorious days for the critic and for the opportunist. Our Ministers have been subject to pin-pricking attacks from north and from south. All the same, it can be hoped that all of this assassination by innuendo has no inspiration in quarters that matter, for the method is un-English, and comparatively new to our politics. "There is a form, miadam; there is a form," as someone says in Goldsmith. There is a right and decent way of attacking any man who, in public life, is thought to be a failure, and there is a dishonourable and a treacherous way. Moreover, there is also justice to be considered. No one individual can be held responsible for the policy of the -whore Cabinet. And then, again, even Cabinet is bound to recognise responsibility in its actions, and cannot sweep aside interests and influences which even though they be admittedly injurious, affect the well-being of the citizens whose investments and livelihood are at stake. Rome, we are told, was not built in a day. ißeconstruction has to avoid as fav as can be any violent repercussions, and it is for that reason that Cabinet must make haste slowly. Just why the discontents with, the Government should appear to gather strength just when the processes of reconstruction begin to have effect is difficult to understand. It is preferable that the rehabilitation plans should proceed undisturbed until the goal of endeavour is reached. There should be in the electorate a greater recognition of the immensity of existing problems. If, instead of this everlasting deputationising and passing of resolutions, all of which serve to divert time and effort, the Government could be left free to develop, its plans and pursue a constructive policy, we would the more speedily rally the old unity and attain a solution to at least some of the disabilities which burden us all at the present time. Does it not- seem folly, even unfair, to expect the Government to tackle a difficult task and, at the same time, call upon it to answer our questioning and our protests ? What business executive it can be asked, could continue the work for the investors if the investors diverted a large share of energy into an explanation of fault-finding ? In the actual problems as they exist the Government has a full-time duty. It therefore behoves the electorate to leave available a reasonable portion of the working hours of the day for tasks that really matter. Wlhen calmly considered, it is surely realised that there is a treemndous advantage in a Government that is not confined to one party. Indeed,

we may hope that the old-tim'e party prejudices are gone, never to return. A national ideal is infinitely to be preferred to a sectional, partizan allegiance. Just now, as we see it, the problem of the National Government, stated in its broadest terms, is to reconcile liberty with rapid, decisive action and the utmost freedom of manoeuvre in dealing with the everchanging issues of post-war politics. To solve that problem, the reform of the machinery of Government would appear to be an urgent need —the repeal of a system which was designed to keep parties in office. The defeat of a measure should not mean the ousting of the Government. This is one reform Which should claim immediate support. The truth is that the old-time political divisions are obsolete and have become a matter of temperament rather than of programme. If we had for our politics something analogous to the General Staff in our military problems, there is no reason why National Government should not combine all that is best in Conservatism, all that is alive in Liberalism, and the great bulk of the Labour supporters who are Soci-alist-only in the sense in which the National Government is itself Socialist—that is to say, ready to consider any project on its merits, irrespective of theory and regardless of Party. These are days when we need national spirit and unity in a new constructive policy. That need is as much felt in the electorate as it is in Parliament.