WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 22 January 1930, Page 7

WELLINGTON TOPICS

EMPTY APPLAUSE. SOME VICTIMS. ;«r. (Special Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Jan. 20. Few men in the front rank of New Zealand politics haye had less reason to thank their party friends for illtimed and extravagant eulogy than lias the present genial leader of the Reform Opposition. Mr Coates does not encourage this kind of approbation—it is perfectly safe indeed to say it is distasteful to him—but the Wellington morning paper will not be deterred. After complimenting Mr Harold Johnston upon having lost a vote in the recent Hutt bye-election rather than stain his conscience, it proclaims that the “same stand on principle has been .taken by Mr Coates in discussing the suggestion of fusion between the Reform and United parties.” Of course no one would expect Mr Harold Johnston or Mr Coates to sacrifice his conscience for the purpose of , capturing a vote, or a whole constituency of votes, and, neither of them would be particularly elated by the suggestion that the rejection of bribery and corruption had cost him even a passing pang of regret.

A LITTLE PREMATURE,

If Mr Coates, as Leader of the Reform Opposition, had rejected a proposal for fusion from Sir Joseph Ward, tile. Leader of the United Government, he would have been entitled to a measure of applause from those good people wedded to the twoparty system. But nothing of that sort has happened. Yet liis political friends hail Mr Coates as the hero of the hour. “In his statement,” they declare,. “he rejects the patchwork of expediency and compromise. Rightly he maintains that fusion cannot be effected by the' sacrifice of much that Reform has stood for. Fusion cannot be built on the shifting sands of opportunism; its sure foundation is identity of principle. Therefore the country will approve Mr Coates lack of concern to save his political skin and his earnestness to keep Ills political conscience. All this would have been very appropriate to the occasion had Reform been invited to coalesce with either of the other parties, but as it stands it falls flat.

“THE ONLY WAY.”

The “Evening Post” in discussing this matter congratulated. Mr Coates upon having amplified his earlier allusion to fusion and emphasises the fact that the suggestion towards this end did not cmne first from the chairman of the United Political Organisation. “Mr Davy’s methods,” it says; “were more likely to bring the parties together in a clash than in a amicable understanding.” As a matter of fact Mr Davy has exhausted the patiencp of both the Reformers and the Uni teds and is not likely to obtain any sympathy from Labour. The “Post,” however, holds fast to the belief that fusion, or, at any rate, a working understanding between Reform and United is the only means by which the country can be saved from a repetition of the failure of last session, with even worse results.” The failure of last session—if the postponement of a good deal of promised legislation can be deemed a failure—was largely due to the Prime Minister’s illness, which, we may hope, will not be repeated.

THETTI POLITICAL SKINS.

Mr Coates’s little homily on the saving of political skins has impelled the “Post” to discriminate between skins and skins. “Certainly no fusion should be attempted to save political skins.” it s a .Y s > “'but a proud and honourable refusal to adopt selfpreservation methods for selfish ends must not he confused with an obstinate and unreasoning, determination to get the scalp of an opponent at any price. We can applaud the steadfastness which' declines to accept or cling to office at . the . cost of compromise with principle; but this does not mean endorsement of the diehard attitude which will, not yield an inch, even though the country may bo delivered into the hands of the political enemy. ’ ’ The suggestion here apparently is that Reform and United should fuse in order, to arrest the progress of Labour; but an arrangement of that kind, according to many people who are watching polit,ic>.tl developments in the Mother Country,- would be more likely to retard than to hasten the arrival of a stable Government.