OUTSIDE PARTY

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20129, 26 December 1939, Page 7

OUTSIDE PARTY

PLACE FOR CRITICS LEADERSHIP INFERENCE UNDER-SECRETARY’S ACT P.B. MEMBER COMMENTS “No one in. the ranks of the Labour Party would wish to stifle discussion of the vital interests of the movement. But when a man expresses criticism of the decisions taken by the party councils, and carries his criticism into the public arena, the only place for him is outside the party," said Mr, D. W. Coleman, M.P. i'or the Gisborne electorate, discussing to-day the political development of the week, which led to the revocation of the aopointment of Mr. J. A. Lee, M.P.. as Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Tire decision of the Cabinet had been fully justified, Mr. Coleman felt, by the attitude which Mr. Lee had taken or. salient features of the Labour Party's policy. A man of great ability, and undoubtedly one.of the ablest speakers and debaters in the House, Mr. Lee had l'eit that his merits were not sufficiently recognised. There was no doubt where the great majority of Labour Party members and supporters would stand on this issue. Unanimous Gift of Discretion Reviewing events which led up to this week’s “parting of the ways.” as between the Cabinet members and Mr. Lee, Mr. Coleman stated that when the Labour Party came into power in 1935 the Parliamentarians in the party had voted unanimously to give the leader full authority and discretion in selecting his Cabinet. This vote was given before the Rt. Hon. M. J. Savage had visited the Governor-General, and had been confirmed when' he announced the names of those he had chosen for Cabinet office. It was plain at the time that not all the members of the party in the House were pleased with the selection, but for the first term of the party in the Government seats everything went smoothly, and there was no suggestion of continued displeasure. Question Raised Last Year Soon after the 1938 election, however, Mr. Lee had given notice of motion to have the selection of Cabinet members taken out of the Prime Minister’s hands, and submitted to caucus. This suggestion was strongly resisted by Mr. Savage, on the grounds that he had led the party in its appeal to the electors with a well-defined Cabinet personnel, and would be regarded as having pledged himself to use the same men as Ministers for the new Parliamentary term. Moreover, he had the fullest confidence in his Ministers, and felt that the results of their work were approved by the movement as a whole.

The Prime Minister made certain proposals to give caucus and the movement generally an opportunity to pass upon Cabinet personnel in future, but he would not give way on the principle that the leader of the party should select his own Cabinet. In the first place, he pointed out, the choice had been placed in his hand, againsthis own inclination, and there were excellent reasons why it should remain there.' Mr. Coleman remarked that caucus approved his stand, and Mr. Lee’s motion was not successful. The present situation however, had developed from the happenings at the last Easter Conference. Tremendous Value of Leadership His feeling in the matter, said Mr. Coleman, was that the party owed full loyalty to its leader, and that those who could not give that loyalty were best out of the party. Many people were inclined to underestimate the part played by the Prime Minister’s own personality in the Government’s success at the last election, and it might well be that some candidates owed a substantial proportion of their majorities to the fact that they were followers of Mr. Savage. He thought that that fact was well recognised in the party, but in any case there was no question of the tremendous value of his leadership.

“I should like to correct a misapprehension which se\ms to be fairly general concerning the existence of a ‘left wing’ in the Labour Party, added Mr. Coleman. “There is no such thing as a ‘left wing movement in the New Zealand Labour caucus, and the difference of opinion which has led to the revocation of Mr. Lee s appointment is the only thing of its kind that has marred the normal smooth relations in caucus and as between the Prime Minister, the members of Cabinet, and the rank and file of the party in the House.”-