The Dominion. THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1910. PARTY MEN AND PARTY POLICIES.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 892, 11 August 1910, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, AUGUST 11, 1910. PARTY MEN AND PARTY POLICIES.

The strange and pathetic speech in which Mr. W. H. Field defended his recent support of Mr. Massey's "freehold" motion is in its way an interesting and valuable, document in the history of the party system in politics. Mr. Field had .pledged himself, when seeking election in 1908, to support the freehold, but. he stood at the same time as a supporter of the Government. Like a great many other candidates he failed to realise that the' Government had no clear policy then, as it has no clear policy now, outside the maintenance of tho principle of State landlordism. He failed, that is to say, to see that in supporting the freehold he was pledging away his ability to support the (government's policy. When Mr. Massey moved his "freehold" motion, and the Prime Minister accepted it as a motion of want-of-confidencie, Mr. Field was naturally very embarrassed. Ho. voted, however, against the Government, and has apparently been suffering agonies ever since. It is no comfort to him that'he-has been ' congratulated on keeping his pledge; he obviously would have, been' happier if he could have broken it; he envies those members .who broke theirs. He did not, he let us hope to a- sympathetic Houso —"regard his vote on that occasion as'anything of an achievement, anything to be proud of, and he hoped, it would never fall to his lot to have' to repeat it." He felt mean, so ho' went, on, in opposing the Government, and "particularly mean" .to those freeholders on his side of the House who had stood loyally by Sir Joseph Ward. He realised that a party man who gave- pledges to-the electors might find himself /voting his party out of office.- "It became a question, then, whether a member .had a right to make'a pledge such as.he had.made to vote in a certain way on a no-confidence, motion." After sketching the miseries which he is suffering by keeping his pledge, he summed.up his position.in the following tearful manner: "Motions of this kind were moved," he sighed, "and he had to vote on one side or the other. If he voted for the motion, he got into trouble with his party,and the Government, and if he voted with the Government the fact was . made use of . against. him at election time, so that he was between the devil and the deep sea." ■ This is all very sad and very true.' Ho must have a heart of stone who cannot join Mr. Field in deploring the fact that "motions of this kind" will bo-moved so long as bold bad men with definite ideas get into the ■House to move them. Nor can any kindly nature fail to sympathise with Mb. Field in ; his obligation to "vote on one side or the other." One cannot help wishing that a third lobby were provided in the House for,-those .worried gentlemen who can only avoid trouble by voting in the middle. That, it is quite clear, is where Mb, Field would have voted if it were possible., We. are afraid that most people will think the apologies of the member for,.Olaki not a little displeasing, and a good many people will be inclinecl/.to see in his distress at having to keop his word a condemnation of tho party system .'in politics. .The party system has.its abuses, but,it is impossible to escape from it, and we are hot sure that it is not in the'long' run better for the nation that there; shall be two main parties in; opposition.- I ''-.Nothing but an . absolute unanimity of opinion and even of interest in the country-, as an Eng7. lish writer points out, can prevent divergencies crystallising, into rival bodies. Until ..the whole nation is of one : mind .as to what, the 'trut; national policy is, it is idle to talk of the abolition of Party,' unless one is prepared to confer on.some (permanent central authority, the control of the nation's destinies. In' GreatBritain there are parties within par-; ties, sharp, and irreconcilable disagreements between men in tho samo. camp, as was made clear by the formation of the "cave" of Liberal? opposition to Mr. Lloyd : Geoiige's land-tax proposals. But we never hear of such painful cases in Britain as Mr: Field's, and this for, the, very, good reason the Government in Britain always stands for' some definite policy, and goes'to the country not as. Smith and Jones and Brown, those popular and well-' known people, but as tho custodians of certain definite principles. . In New Zealand the Government has 'ceased to-possess any definite ideas at all. When a man-says 'T support the Government," he merely means, and is understood as-mean-ing, -that he supports the continuance of Sir Joseph Ward's term of office. He does not know,'any more than Sir Joseph himself, what .policy ha may lie. supporting. . The Ward Government never has been a party of principles: it is merely a party of persons who will adopt anyprinciples that seem to possess the merit of popularity for the. moment; This is why Mr. Field finds himself in his. present unpleasant-' position—' frowned on by the Government, and not viewed too kindly by his freehold constituents. It must not be supposed that we think the tale of blame is ended when the Government is blamed for not possessing principles and the courage 1 of them. The heavies* blame rests upon those memners, like Mr. Field, n who do nothing to enforce a clear pqlicy upon the Ministry they support. "It became a question," said Mr. Field, "whether a member had a right to make a pledge such as he had made to vote in a certain way on a noconfidence motion." It certainly will remain a question for Mr. Field and for many other members like him—for wo are merely using his case to illustrate the position—so long as he and they do not .insist that the Government shall havi) a clear _ policy. It will cease to be a question, and embarrassments will end, just so soon as the supporters ■of the Government force from the Government such a declaration as will cnablo them to know just what they are supporting. Mr. Field talks of his support of the Government policy except on'one' matter. Can he tell us what he means by the Govemmont policy? Of course he cannot, for tho Government itself .does not know. The way out of these dilemmas is for the Government's supporters to say to Sir . Joseph Ward: "Sir, give us a policy. We arc weary of giving _ you carte blanche, and the public is weary of it. For our safety's sake, lot us kiiow where we aro, and what wo .stand for when wo stand for you," <