Will Mr. Fraser Resign If Referendum Vote Is Negative

Chronicle (Levin), 2 August 1949, Page 6

Will Mr. Fraser Resign If Referendum Vote Is Negative

WELLINGTON, August 1. If the people give aii adverse deeision in Wednesday's referendum, the Prime Minister, Mr. Fraser, will resign. That is a statement-being freely made in Wellington not only by some what are in close eontact with the Labour Party iipier cirele but also by leading members of the Opposition.

This opinion is based on the fact that Mr. Fraser has staked everything on his'belief that New Zealand must arm if it is to take its proper plaee in the community of nations and face up to present day problems. He made it perfectly plain again and again that he fears the advance of communism in the East will eventually mean the spread of the tide into the Sonth Pacific and that New Zealand ean do nothing to defend itself against this menace nnless it arms now. Those who are suggesting- that he will resign if the people vote 'Tio", are of opinion that he has no alternative because defeat will be a personal rebutf for a man who led the eountry wisely and weil throughout the war years. On llie otlier hand they say that Mr Langstone will resign from the Labour Party if the verdict goes the other way because, uuless he does, there is the possibility that he will be either thrown out of the Party or deniqd seleetion for liis seat, Roskiil. Again Labour Party folk are responsible for this statement and they point out that nominations for several Auckland seats are bemg held in abeyance until the issues are clarified. , Mr. Langstone, in a speech during the campaign, said recently that it had beeu suggested he should resign his seat if the verdict was in favour of compulsorv niilitarv service but he posed the suggestion 'that, conversely, if the verdict was unfavourable, then botli Mr. Fraser and Mr. Holland might consider resigning.

Well-informed political observers in Wellington say that whilst there is no likelihood of Mr. Holland' resigning because he has nothing at stake, Mr. Praser is in a different position. Unlike Mr. Holland and the NationaJ Party who favoured the introduction of compulsory nxilitary service by Parliamentary ' deeision, Mr. Fraser f aeed his Party with this proposition and failed to obtain a^ mandate from it. Lnstead, he was compelled " to accept a eompromise in the referendum and thereupon made the best of the situation. Xnside the Labour Party there is strong opposition to what is termea "conscription" and the suggestion is that Mr. Praser, if the proposal is defeated by the electors on Wednesday, will be faced with serious domestic pro olems and that he may consider resignafcion as the only possible way out for him if he is to retain his honour. On the otlier hand, there are as many observers who consider that if Mr. Fraser were to take this course it wouid tantamount to eommitting political harakiri and they assert that Mr. Fraser is too o!d and wise a political strategist and tactitian even to think of resignation. They believe that if the deeision is adverse, Mr. Fraser will accept it and then will begin planning to aehieve his objective in some other waj^. They assert that Mr. Fraser is not taking the stand he has witliout having the fullest knowledge of the dangers inherent in the present world situation and that if the people rail to heed his warnings, he is so satisfied that he is right in his juclgment, that he will take the deeision manfully and co'ntinue to endeavour to awaken them to tlie dangers of whieh he has knowledge but which. he is unable to. divulge.