THEN AND NOW

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8351, 11 February 1913, Page 6

THEN AND NOW

To people whoso memories are not exceedingly short tho official mouthpiece of squatterdom and self-styled Reform must provide considerable entertainment. Its undisguised and frequent attacks on Labour, for example, when contrasted with its cajoling patronage just before the last election, make tho squatters’ organ exceedingly ludicrous. Particularly friendly towards Labour and solicitous for its “destiny” was that chameleonic journal during those anxious days that passed between the first and tho second ballots, when in a number of electorates the support of Labour meant literally the breath of life to tho Conservatives. Then did the leading apostles of the Square Deal proclaim from tho housetops their robust affection for tho horny-handed. Then were tho workers “by flattery besieged” and invited to imagine the possibility of tho lion and the lamb sharing tho same couch —such was the “cordial understanding” and tho “real community of interest” declared to exist between tho Tories and the Labourites. Into that campaign of cajolery the squatters’ organ rushed with infinite energy if little wit. It spoke of tho “common ground between us and Labour,” of the high principles for which Labour had always steadfastly striven, of tho transparent honesty and downright straightforwardness of every Labour candidate in electorates where the wonld-bo “Reformers” had been rejected at tho first ballot. “Labour cannot be denied its ‘place in tho sun,”’ said this newspaper opponent of democracy three days before the final polls, though why it proposed to transfer Labour to such an exalted piano it is hard to understand. “In due course Labour will grow in strength, some day it may even grow strong enough to have a Government of its own.” And so on. We do not hear much of this sort of thing nowadays from “Reform” quarters. Instead of Labour having any claim to even “a place in the sun” it is told, bluntly and coarsely, that it has no business to exist —that it is the height of presumption for that section of the community to dare to ask for a place in New Zealand. Which is, after all, what Labour wants, and would find much more profitable and satisfying than a gift of the whole of tho sun could over be. In 1911 tho squatters’ organ spoke in the most affectionate terms of "our country friends and tho Labour party,” declared its notion of good government to include “the truo representation of Labour” as making for “political purity.” and dilated with great (apparent) friendliness on the “fixed principles” that Labour stood for. But, alasl tho scene is changed. In its more refined and enlightened condition of 1913, the journal that coquetted with the workers with such soft words fourteen months ago now regards them from the lofty altitude of “Reform” in office, and makes no disguise of the magnitude of the gulf that now divides Conservatism and Labour. Whereas Labour’s aspirations were then extolled as an honest endeavour to establish fixed principles, a discussion by tho delegates is now described, as “a stream of muddy thinking.” Whereas tho lexicon was searched for honeyed phrases when Tories courted the workers for their votes, no language at the disposal of the squatters’ organ is nowadays sufficiently powerful and abusive to express its suspicion, fear, and hatred of Labour. Every agent of organised labour is now, in the estimation of the great'landowners’ apologist, necessarily and unquestionably an “agitator” and a ruffian, a Jacobin, a dynamiter, or a wrecker. Every officer of a union is something little better than a robber endeavouring to overturn the whole structure of society with the solo object of plunder. And what is Labour’s offence? What has that party done to incur the grave displeasure and copious abuse of the chief exponent of political purity and social security? It has held a conference of two hitherto rather warring branches, in the hope of burying the hatchet. It has made an attempt, probably some progress, towards better organisation. It has debated the situation and discussed the future. Incidentally, there arose at the recent Labour conference some expressions of impatience concerning a certain “square deal” promised and deferred. There was also in evidence, it must be admitted, a general feeling of antipathy to “Reform” os we know it after a few months of administrative experience. But what of that? Can pot a gathering of working men be permitted to seriously discuss their very important affairs except in directions suitable to the exalted taste of the squatters’ newspaper? Is Labour to be denied “a place in the sun,” or even in New Zealand, after all tho glib protestations of Reform in the fateful preelection times? An explanation is certainly due —long overdue, in fact — from the squatters’ orgam Either it was shockingly dishonest in December of 1911 or its views have since undergone a wonderful transformation. Perhaps it will bo not far wrong to reflect that “circumstances alter cases.”