Evening Post. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1929. POLITICAL "TRICKERY AND HUMBUG"

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 137, 6 December 1929, Page 10

Evening Post. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 6, 1929. POLITICAL "TRICKERY AND HUMBUG"

Strong expressions are being bandied about in the Hutt contest in reference to the action of the various political parties concerning Public Service pay. Mr. Kerr has accused the Reform leader of trickery, jobbery, and humbug. Formerly he said that the Labour amendment had been pre-arranged; now he has altered that to arranged. We believe the public attitude towards this wrangle will be-one of disgust. Partisans will, of course, accept the views of their respective candidates; but independent electors will be more inclined to follow the example of the Judge in a recent notorious Sydney divorce suit—find all the allegations proved and dismiss all the petitions. Mr. Kerr has certainly been careless in his use of terms. What he probably intended to convey was a reflection on the sincerity of the Labour Party, and a suggestion that the Party's motion was so framed (not "pre-arranged") that it could not be supported by the Reform Party. Labour knew quite well that the Government would not accept the motion, so that Reform support was necessary for its adoption. But if Reform supported it the Government would be defeated— which Labour evidently did not desire—and the credit for doing something for the Public Service would be divided.

Labour did not worry about the cost. Cost never does worry the Labour Party; but it was concerned at the prospect of Reform disputing its right to pose as the friend of the Public Service. There was such a prospect, for Reform, in Opposition, might be quite willing to do what it had not attempted in office. The danger was a real one, as proved by Mr. Coates's subsequent ill-judged participation in the bidding for the Public Service favour. But if a proposal to do something for the Service were presented with a condemnation of the former Government for its failure to take action, Reform, as a body, could not support the motion. Labour must have known this, and, knowing it, cannot plead that it framed its motion so as to assure it the best prospect of success. But this all rests on opinion, though one may be sure of the political motive behind the Labour motion. Admittedly there was a desire to do something for the Public Service, but this was joined with ■ a wish (to use a colloquialism) to "do for" the other two parties. But proof of this cannot be produced unless one can read the mind of the Labour Party. Mr. Kerr's carelessness in the use of words and his hastiness in making allegations for which he could not produce proof have, however, been eagerly seized on by political wordtwisters. They have seen in his statement a suggestion of collusion between the parties. For this there appears to us to be not the slightest foundation. The parties were, indeed, so bent upon winning credit for themselves and putting discredit on others that there was neither collusion nor co-operation. Each party was working for itself—not for the country at large. To parody Macaulay: Then all -were for the party, And none was for the State.

None of the parties came out of the Parliamentary business with credit. United took the right course in accepting the recommendation of the Advisory Committee of departmental heads, but in doing so it had to admit that many of its members, when in Opposition, had acted without a full sense of their responsibility. Reform, to be consistent, should have given the Government straightforward support in rejecting nhe Labour motion. Instead, it made an attempt to score off the Labour bowling. Labour did its best to put the other parties in the wrong. The subsequent events have not restored party credit. Mr. Holland has brazenly asked the Public Service to become political, and Reform and United, instead of insisting that such an issue should be kept out of party politics, have weakly allowed themselves to be drawn into the wrangle. This is what comes of triangular politics. Plain and straightforward considerations of public policy are lost sight of in the passion for party manoeuvring. "Is it best for the country?" is less the test than "Is it best for the party?" Sooner or later the country must take a hand and tell the parties plainly that it is tired of their bargainings and twistings and turnings. There are great and pressing problems to be solved, and it is no time for petty bickering. The Labour Party has its solution, or rather several solutions, according to the interpreter and the class of votes approached. We are convinced that the Labour platform is not acceptable to the country, but if the non-Labour parties disgust the voters by trivial wrangling they may find that Labour has stolen a march on them.