POLITICAL LABELS

Hokitika Guardian, 3 November 1928, Page 6

POLITICAL LABELS

BEING A ,STUDY FOR THE GENERAL ELECTOR.

(By “X.”)

(Written for the “Guardian.”)

A law framed to protect the public now provides that when foodstuffs or patent medicines are ottered lor sale the I.Abel shall show clearly the nature of the article, the component ingredients, and particularly the percentage of any dangerous drug or preservative used. Applying this procantion to the various brands of politics put before the people at election time, careful analysis is necessary particularly when the article ollercd hears a. label not generally known or recognised, or conveying in itself no self-determining title.

The well ,known and recognised political ingredients are conservatism, libera!ism. radicalism, socialism, and communism. A' e know what these stand for. but when we come to names which convey in themselves no meaning, a very close scrutiny is necessary—that is the' reason why f have emphasised Hie meaningless character of the names “Reform” and “Labour.”

The names which have in the English language been gradually evolved for political parties, have an important significance, and the final classification is perhaps a triumph of nomenclature in so far that each has a name which defines its broad line of policy. Up to within 40 or 50 years ago, ’Liberals and Conservatives (evolved from Roundheads and ( avaliors— Whips and Tories) were the only recognised responsible party divisions. Parliament was really a two party combination, and as swell was copied in New Zealand.

Till 1 appearance of a third, or Radical Parly was caused by a demand for more radical changes to meet changing industrial and social conditions. Since thou the three party system has iboen recognised, but it is worth noting that there I) - - never been a “Radical” British Gov-ernment-—ior reasons winch may •••'’ examined later on. 'I here was <4 ("i;, rse a short-lived “Labour” Gov-

ernment—a -startling innovation in British constitutional history. But iis sliori life and (inglorious earner \vas‘ due to weakness inseparable Horn anv parly representing—or claiming to represent—one section of the cninnnmitv onlv.

Let us look for a moment at the present characteristics ol the three recognised political parties. I say

“present eliara'eterist ics” because the more progressive and tolerant spirit of the age has caused the Conservative to become more Liberal and the liberal to become more Radical. Socialism and Communism are (piite impracticable and are properly regarded 'as, a danger to the body politic.

Conservatism is. and always will be, an important factor in responsible government because it is. always opposed to unwarranted or hasty change* in the State. ’ It is Hie guardian of “vested interests.” but of course these must he protected if the credit of any country—which every economist knows is its very life—is to be maintained. Once credit is shaken ;he country is doomed, as it will no longer lie trusted with the capital essential for development. Russia, the South American Republics, and other countries have provided an object lesson in this respect. A Parliament without its Conservative element would he utterly unsafe. M’he cli’ect of too much conservatism is solvency with stagnation ; Hie effect ol too little means injured credit which if continued loads to insolvency and national disaster. There are world-wide economic forces to be reckoned with which deal with a country in just the same way as film butcher and ba»'cr deal with the customer who will not recognise tile “vested interest'’ "T their overdue account. 'While vested interests must be safeguarded, obligaf ions met. a,ml promises kept to the loiter. Conservatism, if unchecked, tends to go further, putting the interest. or the few before the welfare of the many, and the early' political history of New Zealand shows Hut I something Inure than Conservatism was necessary for the development ot tlx; country.

Liberalism supplied this deficiency, 'j'he liberal lias been defined as the name in itself indicates as generous, tolerant, not narrow minded, free Irom prejudice and advocating extension of popular rights and privileges. ft is the party of moderation and tolerance, containing men of all classes and ever varying shades of political opinion. Liberalism lias b'-e ? the great driving humanitarian f‘'' in the history of the world, "bile its sense of justice and responsibility to all classes has enabled it to watch the interests ol the workers and better their conditions without endang-

ering the credit ol the country. Liboral ism rrjvvo tT IO tranehiso to a\ onion, the half-holiday to workers, and improved conditions to factory employees. It declared that men and women and girls and boys should be paid decent wages, and its labour legislation lias stood the test of time (though it now needs revision by the -party iesponsihle for its introduction). Its land policy was admirable, and the long term of Liberalism was followed by a period of unprecedented prosperity. The trouble which has since overtaken New Zealand is traceable partly to the dislocation caused by the war and also to the fact that while the Conservatives when they came into power, allowed the bulk of Libor;'! legislation to remain, they departed from some of the most essential features of the Liberal policx.

I/literal ism’s record in social reform lias probably been, blurred by tune in tho eyes of the younger generation. But ALB the social reform which has taken place in New Zealand is due to Liberalism, not to “Labour,” anc the Liberal party is the only party that can be a truly national one.

Radicalism is the assertion —generally more or less aggressive—by the democracy of its power. Tts weakness as a party is that it confuses the part with the whole and professes to speak with the voice of the people, whereas it really represents too of to: only an irresponsible minority. Its irresponsiblitv is the cause of its aggressivenes, as it demands what Ire qucntly could not in the interests of the people themselves he granted, and it promises what it could not possibly, if saddled with responsibility, perform. Radicalism has, it is true, won for itself a recognised position in the body politic. It 1‘ sometimes a useful spur to Liberalism, but speaking generally it is an irresponsible political party' appealing t° the passions and prejudices of the people, not to their reason. It is generally' the policy' of the “soap-box orator, though many intelligent people of all classes have adopted more or less radical views as an offset to Con servatism when the latter has obstructed progress and inflicted injustice on humanity.

T. am not dealing, just now with “Socialism and “Communism.” the former being the policy of the impracticable fanatic, and the latter e< the revolutionary. It will be more to the point to analyse the parties la elled “Reform” and “Labour” and the political ingredients in their com position. “Labour” was, and in effect always must be, the radical wing of the Libera! Party. It can never, on its own, become a satisfactory or responsible political party. T think it can be shown that when it broke away from the Liberal Party and the Liberalism of Rallance and Seeldon, it not only did great injury to those it profesM'd to represent—the workers—but retarded the progress ol New Zealand. and brought about the conditions it now deplores. I will endeavour to show in niy next article the component ingredient l which should Ik* printed on the “ Hohum ” and “ Labour ” labels. “ Reform consists of conservatism and liberalism only—a perioctly good mixture. though not suited to the New Zealand constitution at the present time-bill I - am afraid in the “Labour ” (lope we shall find several very dangerous and deleterious ingredient' against which the public must be warned.