NEED FOR A NATIONAL PARTY

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 2907, 9 July 1925, Page 4

NEED FOR A NATIONAL PARTY

"WELFARE LEAGUE’S VIEWS,

Comment lias been made to us, and lias also been voiced in tlie correspondence columns of some newspapers, on the ground that the Welfare League has not recently publicly advocated a fusion between (ho non-socialist groups in Parliament. It has been suggested that the League only advocated such a combination because it was not likely to eventuate, and that now it. was “on the cards” the League was showing insincerity by not publicly supporting the proposal. Our critics forget that we wrote very strongly on the desirability of a genuine fusion only a few weeks ago, but in order to satisfy those who question our sincerity we now venture to submit the following for tho serious consideration of all thinking electors. To the “average man” it has for some years seemed utterly absurd to see parties in the House divided in personal prejudice rather than on political principles. In 1922 we said “we feel that, all the world over, the voters have got, to face two policies, which have a fundamental difference —it is no less than Individual Liberty and private ownership against Socialistic State Control and ownership. If we are right, then we must sink all minor differences, and combine in one party to meet the attacks on personal liberty.” We have never wavered in that opinion and we believe that we voice the large majority of voters. We do not advocate anything in the form of a Coalition but a genuine combination of the best elements in the House of National lines. P>ut it must be realised that no arrangement between parties in Parliament can have much value, until continued by the electors through the bal-lot-box, and for this reason we are firmly convinced that it is the duty of the members of both Reform and Liberal parlies to give a definite lead, so that the issue of a National party can be put clearly before the electors at the end of the session.

The Welfare League has -been classed as “amateur” in polities — and we accept that definition, hut would remind our critics that about 95 ijer cent, of the electors are also amateurs, therefore the “amateur” view on the present situation has to be reckoned with.

The average man in business circles would, we believe, like to see non-socialists members combine on general principles, and give the ieader an entirely free hand to select the best men for Cabinet rank regardless of old party lines. In other words we ask members to sink personal ambitions in the national interests but such a course would entail the abolition of the present party names of “Reform” and “Liberal” for a title expressive of a national ideal.

This we believe is essential and we hope iL is not too much to ask from our members of Parliament. Another ideal which we should like to see adopted is the selection of men for Cabinet rank, because they are qualified for the particular portfolios nlloted to them, not because they have, rendered this or that party special service. New Zealand has for a long time suffered from the practice of making the test of Cabinet rank rather that of party service than efficiency One word more as to the League’s silence in this matter. We saw an honest attempt being made by members of Parliament to bring about the fusion we have so long advocated, and have also seen the proposal ably supported by the newspapers, therefore we felt it unnecessary to say more than we have already said, because we should only have been adding one more voice to an already powerful chorus of approval. (Contributed by the New Zealand Welfare League).