The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1913. THE SAME OLD GAME

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8342, 31 January 1913, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1913. THE SAME OLD GAME

There is something very humorous in the frenzy of consternation and anger into ■which tho squatters’ organ worked itself yesterday in contemplation of tho fearful possibility that Liberalism and Labour might one© more unite their political forces and work together in sympathetic accord. From tho squatters’ point of view this contingency is certainly a most disquieting and dispiriting one. It means so much to tho disadvantage of tho Tories' in general and tho squatters in particular. For example, it means the loss of the power of office that enables self-styled Reform to arrogantly trample on tho rights of the masses as opposed to tho privileges of the classes. It means tho cutting-up of the largo estates and tho imposition of tho higher graduated land tax to which Sir Joseph Ward and his supporters have committed themselves. It means a return to progressive legislation as opposed to the reactionary Tory policy of stopping tho political clock. It probably means escape to the Civil Service from tho imposition of a system of espionage and irritating meddlesome interference with routine that has already become intolerable. It means land for tho people as opposed to the preservation of vast estates and reaggregation of areas. It means all this and much more besides. It might even mean depriving Mr Massey of the opportunity ho is enjoying so hugely of giving Labour that threatened or promised “square deal” that was evidently designed to bludgeon them into submission and subservience. It is, therefore, scarcely any wonder that the squatters’ organ, which is kept alive to protect the great landed interests, should rage, implore, and eventually become hysterically lachrymose in its appeals to tho Labour party to listen to reason. Strange, is it not, that the Labour party should turn an obdurate ear to the blandishments of the squatters and refuse to listen to reason from their particular point of view? It is even more strange when wo remember that, in the opinion of the squatters’ organ, the Labour party possesses no reasoning power of its own, and that its recant conference was distinguished only by “a stream of muddy thinking. However, tho squatters’ organ appears to be eager now to peso m tho role of the sympathetic triend and earnest counsellor of Labour and to forget, with amazing facility, tho disconcerting fact, that only a few days ago it was vehemently denouncing the leaders of that party as “ruffians,” ana fiends,” and other equally agreeable tilings. However, that is all past and forgotten. There appears to be a possibility that Labour may once more bo found in dangerous association with Liberalism, and this contingency being most disastrous to Labour, tho squatters’ organ is prepared te take tho trades unionists gently by the hand and lead them to a position of safety. Needless to say, no attempt is made to indicate where that position is, but probably it is a place where tho party can do itself, and incidentally the squatters, no harm. Tho squatters’ organ is convinced that Labour should decide its own policy and achieve its own destiny alone. Of course, tho party already enjoys this right, but it would ho more secure under the protecting caro and direction of‘ tho squatters. This fact cannot bo too strongly emphasised. There are other equally disinterested conclusions that are not committed te cold print hut that are nevertheless strongly suggested by tho tono of tho squatters’ organ. One of these is that tho leaders of tho Labour party should have been denied admittance to the conference and their place should, in tho interests of wisdom and moderation, have been taken by the representatives of tho land monopolist interest. Tho discussions at tho conference should have been kept carefully along tho linos of approved Tory thought. The resolutions should have been drafted by tho literary staff of the squatters’ organ. If these things had been done, the Labour conference would havo been a triumphant success, from the squatters’ organ point of view, and those vials of hysterical wrath would not havo been poured out upon tho misguided heads of the Labour party. This is all very illuminating and instructive. It certainly shows how tho wind blows. Self-styled Reform is feeling perfectly secure .so long as tho forces of Liberalism and Labour do not unite to accomplish its_ downfall. If they do unite, no device of sophistry or political strategy can savo Masseyism and the influential forces in the_ background that arc using it as; a pawn in the game of politics. the consensus of public opinion is opposed to self-styled Reform, but so long as tho strong antagonistic forces can be persuaded to continue disunited. Reform” will remain strongly entrenched in power. The late Mr Seddon, who was the greatest political organiser this country has ever seen, gave it as his experienced opinion that Liberalism by itself could achieve nothing, that Labour alone must continue to be an impotent power, but that Liberalism and Labour in hearty co-operation would always sweep the counter. The i truth of this conclusion was exemplified

in Mr Soddcm’s own political career, and looking back upon it now. what a glorious record of progressive achievecient it accomplished. It is the remembrance of this past, and the terrifying potentialities of the future, that prompted the squatters' organ yesterday to temporarily abandon its traditional policy of abusing the Labour leaders. and. by more subtle methods, to endeavour to foment discord once more between the forces of Liberalism and Labour that are slowly but surely drawing nearer to each other in cordial sympathy. Its words concerning Labour were honeyed—for Liberalism, which the squatters’ organ fears with mortal terror, it had only abuse. Tho destiny of Liberalism, in the choice and delicate phraseology of the squatters’ organ, is to be tho scullion of the political kitchen. It was the resolve of the manhood of Great Britain centuries ago that it would no- longer be the scullion to the privileged classes, that it would assert and maintain the birthright of individual lil>erty and freedom, that called the Liberal party into existence. Is it likely to-day, after all it has achieved, that the Liberal or any other party will return to tho position of. political scullion, from whence it has been emancipated for centuries, at tho dictation of the squatters’ organ or any other subsidised agency of the Tory class ?