THE DANGERS OF PARTY CONFLICT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2711, 22 March 1924, Page 4

THE DANGERS OF PARTY CONFLICT.

NATIONAL INTERESTS SACRIFICED. (Contrbuted by the N.Z. Welfare League.) One of the gravest dangers of our time lies in the fact that many politicians, carried away by their bitter party and personal feuds, forget the country’s interests and play into the hands of the revolutionary socialists whom they most disagree w itii.

We see this evil of party before country operating in Britain, Australia, and being fully manifested here, in New Zealand. In this connection it is notable that leading members of the Reform and Liberal parties are found expending most of their powers on each belabouring the other party as if it alone were the enemy. To the outsider it is most clear that all of this conflict goes very largely towards strengthening the third party which is the implacable enemy of both of them. This is most regretable because it has been recognised many times over that on various vital principles there are no essential differences between the Reform and Liberal members. So much is there in common between members on both sides of the House that great numbers of people throughout the Dominion fail to see why there should not be an amalgamation of forces. We lind everywhere earnest workers in both the Reform and Liberal party who are very strongly of opinion that such combination must be affected. It is freely admitted that very wide-spread discontent obtains with respect to the present political situation. A great deal of this discontent is undoubtedly due to the dangerous course recently taken by Parliament towards State Interference with trade and commerce. The feeling of the insecurity lias been engendered and goes towards sapping confidence in our representatives. In addition we find certain politicians, for a purely party end, seeking to divide the country along the line of class, forgetting that we are all citizens and practically all workers. That idea of class division is the Reds card and should be left to them. They are bent on playing it to the revolutionary culmination of (he dictatorship of their class over all other citizens. With the liberties for all in this country and the standards of general wellbeing, there is n<> room for class division. Our political differences should be on the ground of principles and policies, not class. We read of one party organiser saying fhat “organised Labour is behind Air Holland to a man.” It is a dangerous utterance and the person who made it .could not have known the facts. There are many workers’ unions in New Zealand which are not affiliated to the “N.Z. Political Labour Party” of which Mr Holland is leader, and even in the unions affiliated there are manyindividual members who do not ,agree with this Socialist Party. There are large numbers of moderate labour men and women who do their own thinking and are not led by any party bosses whatsoever. The Municipal elections in New Zealand prove that beyond question. It is not the Socialist programme or Mr Holland’s fanciful ideas of land nationalisation and general socialisation of production, distribution and exchange that has given his party so many votes. It is the thoughtless conflicts of the other parties that has made the socialist’s strength, and if such conflicts go on we are likely to see more socialist control in this country. Our appeal is to thinking members of both Reform and Liberal parties that they will make partysubservient to the Dominion’s need. Wjhat is wanted to-day is a strong National Government in power with a party behind which will be at once protective of personal liberties and socially progressive in its aims. The three-party-syslem fails to act when the numbers become so close that by mere fortuitous circumstance, a minority party may control the situation and force a line that is dangerous t<> the country. For strictly national reasons we urge upon the members of Parliament to keep their parly feelings within bounds and remember always that the nation’s interest comes before i veryl hing.

fused to spend a hundred dollars to stop the leak in the roof', which spoiled both, would be considered a fool, Bui there are many counties and many States which spend from 10,000 dollars to 25,000 dollars a mile for a good road, and refuse the 100 dollars a year needed to keep it in perfect order. The time to begin to repair a good road is the day it is opened for traffic. Homely philosophy says that a stitch in time saves nine, and road experience proves that a bucket of oil, a. little sand, a few rocks and a man with a shovel now can save the expense of a whole road gang and expensive machinery later.

The modern road consists of a foundation course of stone, a smaller, lighter course on top, a wearing course of still smaller stones, a hinder of oil and sand, and perhaps a top dressing of the same. As long us the structure is complete, the road will wear. But let time, or a too heavy load, or frost, or some other cause, dig a hole through the wearing course into the foundation, and the bad spot will begin to “ravel.” Stones will break away and roll down into the ditch, the surface will disintegrate and in a short time a large and rough hole appears. A good road is better than its worst mile. A mile if holes and ruts cuts down the usefulness <>f ten miles of good road. To repair a large hole costs much money. To inspect the road often and stop up the little hole when it starts is very inexpensive. The greatest city fire in history could have been put out by a child with a cup of water if found in lime. So can the worst possible damage to roads be inexpensively prevented if the maintenance is begun in time. (American paper).