Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1928. POLITICAL SIDES.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 September 1928, Page 4

Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1928. POLITICAL SIDES.

The political life and activities of the Member for Westland still concern the Grey Argus very greatly, and one can almost imagine Mr Seddom sitting on the chest of the editor in hits nightly slumbers while the sleeper dreams many of the imaginatve views which later find their way into the leading articles of the paper. Some thing of this* nature must have happened over the - week end for on Monday the Argus paid the Monitor for west land the usual attention affording Mr Seddon extra publicity. Incidentally the paper paid some attention to our article of Saturday last, and concluded : “Wc have, however, a query for our contemporary, the answer to which if available, will make it clearer where the Member stands than any generalising upon the mere term “Liberalism. The Ballnnce-Seddon regime was not one expounding merely an academic philosophy of Liberalism, hut it had a policy whereby the workers of

classes, on the land!, or anywhere else, got a chance. To-day there is the Reform Party, with a policy conservative of the interests of the wealthy; and there is the United Party, which •will serve the interests of those outside the wage-earning classes. Mr Seddon is professedly anti-Labour, so he must belong to one of the other Parties. So our question for the Guardian. is: Which?” Just liow the old Adam can demonstrate itself we see revealed in the statement that “the United Party” is to “serve the interests of those outside the wage earning classes.” Now, this is plainly contrary to fact. Only last week, when accepting the position of leader of the United Party, Sir Joseph Ward said that if the United Party came into power, it had yet to affirm—and to act up to—certain principles which, he was sure would commend themselves to all of those present, and likewise to the bulk of the people in New Zealand. He wanted to lay down a policy for the good of the country as a whole. He wanted to see a policy adopted which would not only be for the good of the country as a whole, but which could be carried out without injuring any section of the business community, or the farmers, or the workers. This is clear and definite. And we have confirmation, too, from the columns of the “Lyttelton Times,” essentially a workers’ paper, wherein it said in an article last week: “In a political career extending over forty years Sii Joseph Ward has never identified himself with any sectional interest or movement. ’ His guiding, principle has always been the good of the whole people. This was the keynote of the speech in which he accepted the leadership of the United Party, and it explains why his acceptance has a special significance in the present state of politics in New Zealand.” Bo we see that the United Party stands for the people as a whole and not those “interests outside the wage earning classes.” Sir Joseph’s policy as bis record as Minister, Premier and Prime Minister shows, is well embalmed in the laws of the land already, and the amelioration of the lot of the workers and

their general welfare was always in the forefront of his programme. The record of the ex-Prime Minister in regard to legislation both on behalf of the party and “off his own bat” as Postmaster-General and Minister of Finance leave no doubt that Sir Joseph is well disposed to all sections of the community and that his re-entry as a leader is being co-rdially welcomed on Jill sides, his outstanding ability being so highly recognised and generally admired for real services, not in sectional interests, hut for public interests as a whole. However, our contmporarv has asked us a question, to which party Mr Seddon belongs. Mr Seddon has been allied with the Nationalists of which Mr Forbes was leader. The National group are now associated with the United Party, and it may bq accepted (though it does not

follow) that Mr Seddon will be with that party. There has not been any public declaration by Mr Seddon, as far as wo know, and perhaps lie is waiting wisely for the publication of the United Party’s policy before finally committing himself. Nevertheless, there is one thing certain, and that is Mr Seddon is anti-Labour as at present politically organised, and is p'edged to vote against any amendment by Labour seeking to displace the Government. To that extent Mr Seddon is pro-Boform, and appears to strike a happy medium by which, as a mem er, he is able to serve his constituency individually with such general success. It is distressing that that success so annoys our contemporary, but Mr Seddon may please himself in these matters, and incidentally he appears to be pleasing his constituents.