IRRESPONSIBLE CRITICISM

Hokitika Guardian, 12 November 1929, Page 2

IRRESPONSIBLE CRITICISM

(% X.)

The three-party Parliament is on the whole far preferable •to the two-party as there are definite cleavages of political opinion, classified as the Conservative, Liberal, and. Radical. lln strongest Parliament New Zealand hasever had—in the time of Ballance and Seddon—was really a three-party Parliament though in those days politica parties were not ticketted with meaningless and misleading names. Conservatives were called Conservatives not “Reformers.” And “Labour” as a political party was unknown. Bui the' Liberals bad always the Conservatives on one wing, and the Radicals on the other. The Conservatives wen the champions of “ vested interests and the accredited representatives o ( the “ squatocracy,” while the Radicals were, while nominally supporters of the Liberals, because they had no party o r their own, always the representatives of “ extreme Labor,” and more dr less an irritant—though a negligible one—so far as the powerful Liberal Party was concerned.

History shows how the Liberals went steadily on their way legislating foi the welfare of, the people of the country, helping the settler, opening up land for settlement, discouraging speculation in freehold, checking the mono poly of land and its aggregation'in urge estates; benefiting the worker, and treating humanely the aged and indigent. The record of progressive and humanitarian legislation hv the ’Seddon Government ; has never been equalled perhaps in' any part of the world.

Now the Liberals are in power again and have demonstrated already that the old policy with which the party has been identified is to be,brought to life again. But the conditions are not,as favourable. It may be questioned whether tlie people now have as clear view of political issues as was the case some tulenty years ago. Certainly every effort has been made by politicians to jconfnse and cloud these issues. Both the Conservative , and Radial wings lia.ve made claim to he Liberals —the forfiier under the- name of “ Reform” and the latter as “Labor.” It may be said that Labor has never claimed £o ; be Liberal. But it must be remembered that the original laborites were elected as supporters of Seddon and it has been claimed that labor is the only true', exponent of the BnllanceSeddon policy. Both the claims of Massey and Holland were of course quite unfounded, but they have in course of time \clouded the political issue and caused the votes of many liberals to be diverted—some to “Reform ” and some to “Labor ” with the result that tlie thVee parties are non* so equally divided that the opposition parties by combining would have power to turn the -Liberal• Government out. The same conditions -prevail in Great Britain to-day—-a combination of Liberals and Conservatives could turn out the Radical Government— incorrectly called “Labor”—at any time.

It is an 'open question as to whether this state of affairs is in the interests of the country or not. It has generally happened—in fact almost invariably—that when a government is returned with an overwhelming majority, aiid when the opposition is numerically negligible the party in power appears to Ipse touch with the people—it becomes arbitrary and dictatorial, and no longefv considers it necessary to give convincing reasons for its actions. This is resented, and the sympathies and ■ support fof first one section of the community and then another are withdrawn until at the following elections it has been, found that the foundation of public support has been undermined, the party ceases to he the governing factor and the- government passes into other hands.

While it is admitted by political economists . that a strong, virile and active opposition is an important factor in democratic government yet when this opposition consists of two or more factions opposed to one another the position is complicated, and is apt to lend itself to what may be well termed political humbug. A responsible Opposition the leader of which knows he would, in the event of the defeat of the Government be called on to form a Cabinet and carry on, must necessarily watch his steps and be prepared to bring down a policy in accordance with bis criticism. But when this responsibility is not there, and it is only a matter of obstructing and embarrassing the Government the position is entirely different. It is easy to make political capital out of sympathy with those who have to pay more taxation, and the weeping of crocodile tears over the poor unjustly treated civil servant. It is easy to say everyone should receive full union wages whether they work or not; that there should be pensions and superannuation for everyone ; that as one labor candidate said, everyone should have the best of everything; that money and yet more money should be borrowed. All this is political clap-trap which is a reflection on the intelligence rtf the people as it must be assumed that they are unable to see through it.

But Ihough the conditions are now conducive to this silly and irresponsible criticism of the Government it may be noted that the position of the Liberal Government is really very secure—so far as the present Parliament is concerned. Policy measures have been forced through with big majorities and no-confidence motions have received short shrift. If therefore it is found practicable to carry on the work of Parliament even when the three

parties are so nearly numerically equal there is every reason to believe that within the next two years the Liberals will by the reintroduction of tlie old policy, under which tlie country became so prosperous, so strengthen their position as" to secure a further mandate from the people. A three-party Parliament with the Liberals as the

centre and more powerful, blit with a Conservative and Radical wing on either side is possibly the most representative legislature attainable. The record of this session should serve to explode the fallacy that there can be a coalition between Reform and United —Conservative and Liberal. In Great Britain it will only be in the event of the MacDonald Government bringing down some legislation dangerous to the unity and safety of the Empire that the liberals and conservatives may be looked on to temporarily unite. Coalitions have always been weak and—like labor— contain within themselves the factors of disruption and dissolution at any time.