The Wanganui Chronicle. FRIDAY, JULY 24, 1925. NO APPLAUSE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19366, 24 July 1925, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. FRIDAY, JULY 24, 1925. NO APPLAUSE

On looking: over the editorial comments in the New Zealand press on the subject of Mr. AVilford’s latest “stunt” we are struck by the singular lack of. enthusiasm amongst the Liberal journals. On the whole the press of the country has elected to take a national view of the fusion issue, and herein, unlike Mr. Wil ford, they are reflecting the general feeling of the community. The Otago Daily Times, by a process of logic which we are unable to follow, considered that the blame for the breakdown of the fusion negotiations lay with the Reformers, but it did not permit its altitude in this connection to prevent it from expressing strong disapproval of the Wil ford “stunt.” The Lyttelton Times, one of the strongest Liberal journals in the country, is convinced that there was a strong desire in the country for a fusion against the Communist peril, and considers that the public were entitled to expect from the fusion negotiations a more, patriotic decision. The Christchurch Sun. sugaring its rebuke Io the Opposition Loader with the remark that it has no reason to doubt his sincerity, expects that the country “will accept it merely as a farce rather crudely staged.” The NewZealand Herald regretfully remarks that Mr. Wil ford “might have spared Liberalism the parting kick implied in his deliberate use of that phrase as distinguishing his new party from the one he has unavailingly tried to lead.” The New Zealand Times, lor years the press bulwark of the Liberal Party in Wellington, has lately developed an undisguised hostility 1o Mr. Wilford. Its comment on his new adventure is worth quoting: “The occasion calls for something more than mild reproach. Here was a political group which, when refused, and rightly refused, immediate amalgamation involving a reconstruction of the Govern ment, suddenly turned about and decided to intensify existing division among the anti-Socialists. What sort of spurious Nationalism is this which has been thrust upon us.’ By this, Mr. Wilford’s disillusionment will have begun. There has been no ‘marvellous response' to liis disastrously-inspired call. On the contrary, that call has evoked mostly a chorus of contempt or derision from quarters that matter. No political evangelist ever took to the road with so adverse a wind against him. If Mr. Wilford persists in this egregious folly of his. he will appeal to the constituencies several months lienee without one really influential newspaper behind him. Is he so intoxicated with his own Nationalist brew that he cannot comprehend what. that, moans? One can easily imagine the effect of Ibis chorus of disapproval upon those who arc contemplating an election, campaign under the Wilford banner. What chance have Mr. Wilford’s candidates of success at the polls in the face of such a wholesale condemnation of his own tactics? If we are not greatly mistaken there will be a general cry of “sauve qui pent’’ and a hel-ter-skelter rush to get in out of the wet. In which ludicrous event the last state of the unfortunate Mr. Wilford and those who unwisely elect to support him will be worse than the first. In the meantime Mr. Wilford. who plainly lacks the saving sense of the ridiculous, persists in the House in making pointed references to the Nationalist Party as “his party,’’ much to the amusement of members, who seem to find considerable entertainment in “pulling his log.’’