FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1919. A CANDID POLITICIAN

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 7, 3 October 1919, Page 6

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1919. A CANDID POLITICIAN

Most people will agree 'heartily with the verdict pronounced by Mit. Downie Stewaiit upon the present contest of parties in the House of Representatives. So far as the two main parties are concerned, the •Financial debate—a debate in which tliQ whole range of policy is opened for discussion—is nothing else than a shain fight. The only purpose it has served is to demonstrate that there are no more substantial grounds of difference _betwecn these parties than there might easily bo between the various members of a single party.'' There is no important policy question on which the two parties arc definitely at issue.' Even the nationalisation of the coal mines is not an exception. Ifc is true that StE Joseph Ward is committed to nationalisation, and that the' Government is not, But the Liberal Leader meantime seems to be trimming on this question, In his policy manifesto be declared that tho whole of the coal mines in New Zealand should be nationalised. Speaking in the Financial debate, he advocated the nationalisation of the mines worth purchasinor. Even, however, if Sir Joseph Ward and his whole party declared unreservedly for nationalisation it dops not necessarily follow that a party issue would be raised. It is noteworthy in this connection that the Industries Committee,, on whic\ parties were prettv ewWv represented,. recommended: "That the coal-men* sures of the Dominion be nationalised, and tliiit privately-owned mines and measures be purchased by the State at valuation.Nothing has mo!*e clear]" emnhasised the absence of a yeal dividing line between the main parties than the references made in the course of f ho debate to financial The chief point of controversy in this C&tsgory has been whether the. revenue surplus accumulated duvina: the war years has or has not been transformed into a. sinking fund because Sin Joseph Ward alleys that it ought, to bs. No rational human being will waste any time over such foolishness or .consent to regard_ it as a genuine ground of contention between two parties. The Liberal members who have parroted then Leader on this question know as well as he does that revenue 'is not a sinking fund, and that the application of revenue to a legitimate purnose is not collaring a sinking fund, but the time wasted in such, futilities is a striking proof that there iB no real ground of difference between the parties. Every contribution vet made to the debate by Bcform and Wardist members has built up evidence on the same point, and the total result is the exhibition of political insincerity which the member for Du.nedin West, summed up effectively and with blunt candour as a sham fierht.

The dictum that tho pretended lantagonism of the two main parties is a holfcw sham calls for one vitally impoftant reservaLion. Though they are not divided on policy—iißinfr that term in its real meaning and ns distinct from electioneering display—their present attitude entails a real' division of force, and one that promises to bring serious trouble upon- the country unless private members assert themselves before the session ends, and an appeal is made to the country. The actual srronnd of division as matters stand is that one party follows Mr. Massey and another Sir Joseph Warji. and the arrangement cannot be justified unkss it is held that tho pretensions of party lenders are more imnortant. than the interests and M-elfare of the people of New Zealand. The antagonism of parties which are in agreement on practieallv all broad grounds of policy is indefensible if it is agreed, as it must be, that the interests of the democracy are paramount, and that the claims and ambitions of this or that leader count for nothing by comparison. Members of these parties cannot evade the issue by which they aye plainly confronted. They must clbose between loyalty to party, or rather to obsolete party divisions, and lovalty to the people by whom they were elected. The attempt- to maintain party divisions which have become, in any worthy test, meaningless, in the first. Tilace hinders tho transaction of public business at a time when smooth working of the

legislative machinery is supremely to be desired, and' for this Sin Joseph Ward must tako the'actual responsibility. At the same time, in the extent to which it succceds_ io will impede' an effective expression of the popular will at the forthcoming election. As Mr. Dowms Stewart pointed out the other evening, there is a real line of demarcation between the Labour-Socialist coterie in Parliament and the rest of the House. The same line of division is clearly drawn in the country. In the country, as in Parliament, those who arc opposed to the wild schemes and extravagant-demands of the Labour-Socialists preponderate overwhelmingly. It cannot be expected, however, that, the impending election will fairly l'nflcct miblic opinion if the body of moderatethinking electors is split in face of the common enemy, as the two main narties are in Parliament to-day. The root of the trouble is thq exaggerated powc and Tivoniinence given to party leaders. The first step towards a remedy is thn.t politicians affcl political candidates should ttroun themselves solelv with regard to their opinions on auestions of policy and national interest. _ It does not rcst'onlv w.ith sitting members of Parliament to correct what is at fault' in the existing state of affairs, but it ourhft to be obvious to most of them that the attempt to re-establish pre-war party lines was .a blunder which already stands fully exposed and condemned. They arc bound to recofjiisfi that the conn try will accept nothinpr le:;s from Parliament henceforth than a full-bodied working effort which will leave no time or scope for futile faction fighting. It is open .to members of Parliament to do something to facilitate an approach to ccmclitions which they cannot hope in any case to avert for long. If the elections are fought as a triangular_ contest, .it is fairly certain that neither'of the main parties will secure a working majority, narticularly as the La-bour-Socialists would fchus.be given ideal conditions in which to increase their strength. The natural and inevitable sequel to a contest with these results would be the enforced fusion of the two main parties under such leadership as the combined body might approve. Common sense suggests that these developments should be anticipated by as far as possible establishing conditions in which the electors would be divided on real issues at the polls instead qf the majority being split to magnify the importance and promote the ambitions • of party' leaders. There is no doubt thut whatever politicians may do, the people will liefore'long enforce a national grouping in the House of Representatives —a grouping under which a considerable majority of its members would unite in furthering the policy of constructive development ni regard to which most of tu'em arc in broad agreement. The immediate question is whether politicians are to meet the people hal f-wav or to demonstrate their inability to rise, superior to the standards that passed' muster before the war, but will no longer suffice.