The Press. Wednesday, June 9, 1920. Opposition Criticism.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16856, 9 June 1920, Page 6

The Press. Wednesday, June 9, 1920. Opposition Criticism.

When' Parliament meets, in about a fortnight, it will commence a session of unusual importance, for this Dominion, although it was free from most of tho difficulties that beset almost every other country during the war, is now confronted with post-war problems as troublesome as those with which other countries are struggling. Here, as everywhere, the timo is at hand when some means must be found for dealing with industrial troubles with skill and in- 1 sight. Here, also, there is urgent need for more intense production. The financial outlook, too, is so uncertain that tho Prima Minister has felt impelled to issue some warnings to tho public. That is to say, the general situation is such that it is the duty of members of Parliament to regard themselves, in a degree in which they have nover hitherto' regarded themselves, as the Managing Committee of the Dominion, and not a 9 a collection of parties contending for office with the usual party . weapons. The Labour group will, of course, go its own way; pledged to the advocacy of certain extreme theories, it will treat the Government as simply an enemy to l>e attacked. But tho position of the Liberal Party is rather different from this. Its leader has given some tepid support to the idea that the Liberals should aim at furnishing helpful criticism, and at abstaining from purely fac'tious activities, but the rank and file of the party have had nothing to say. But some of tho Liberal papers, in the meantime, are industriously seeking to keep the old party spirit alivo by a policy of ceaseless and mainly inaccurato sniping. .No objection can bo taken to sound and legitirnato criticism even when the driving force behind it is the old partisan feeling. Nevertheless, when partisanship is demonstrably the motive, such criticism, even when it is sound, is unlikely to bo very useful. Its usefulness, moreover, is likely still further to bo impaired when it alternates with criticism unsound and purely captious. "We call that criticism demonstrably partisan in origin, which consists of censure of.this Government for permitting or continuing condition? for which the critic had 6nly praise when another Government was in office. An excellent example of criticism of this kind is tho newborn zeal of somo of the Opposition papers for an alteration in the public works policy which tliey manfully upheld for twenty years under the Liberal regime. If they were not so incurably partisan in their outlook, these critics would advocate this reform in a tone more becoming their own record. A nowspaper which for 20 years energetically defended tho bad old system when tho Liberals were avowedly using it for party ends can hardly expect to do any good for it-self or its •"friends when it bitterly condemned the Tttforru Government's neglect to end the system. As an example of criticism that is captious and unfair as well as partisan in intention, we find in one of the Liberal papers a sharp onslaught upon tho • Government on the basis of tho railway returns for one month. Only a critic on the watch for any pretext to fire a shot at the Government wceild dream of basing any serious criticism on one month's figures. This critic has. also discovered that the railways did not pay interest last year on tho capital invested in them, and were a burden on the taxpayers. This, we believe, is disputable, but we very distinctly remember that when tho railways were certainly being run at a loss index the Liberals, the Liberal critics

slied oceans of ink to prove that thcio was no need to make tho railways psy that, indeed, the country really benefited through their being run at a loss. The change of view on the Liberals part is clearly due only to the change of Government. We are very doubtful whether those of its who have leng contended for sound principles arc really strengthened by the accession of such opportunist recruits. Xot to multiply examples, we shall here mention only one more instance of the kind of criti-c-ism that tho Opposition students of politics should cschew. The Government is taken severely to task for adopting a wheat policy that supposedly enables the farmer to say "Heads I "win, tails you lose." It is admitted that wheat-growing must bo encouraged, and yet when the Government offers encouragement, it is censured by people who can suggest no alternative policy that would ensure a full harvest. We shall soon see whether the Opposition's methods in Parliament are to be informed by the spirit of the criticisms we have referred to. If they arc, then this country will not- bo well served. Yv'o hope, however, that the Opposition will seriously reflect upon tho fact that it must "do its bit 7 ' as well as tho Government. It it cannot find a distinct body of sound principles to defend against the Government—and we do not see where it can find any such body of sound principles—its duty, if it is really concerned for the country's welfare, is to cultivate candour and sincerity. The country cannot affcrd to have the Opposition expending its energies in purely captious and partisan criticism. And the Liberals should remember that their caso is tho case of tho King's brother to whom tho King said, "At " any rate, my dear, they will never " cut off my head to make you King." Whatever the country may think of doing some day with tho present Government, it will never turn it out to let the Liberal Party in. They have had one spell of present-day Liberalism, and once is plenty.