THE PUTARURU PRESS. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1928. PARTY OR GROUP SYSTEM?

Putaruru Press, Volume VI, Issue 259, 25 October 1928, Page 4

THE PUTARURU PRESS.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1928. PARTY OR GROUP SYSTEM?

’Phone 28 - - - P.O. Box 44 Office - - - - Oxford Place

EVER since Labour became sufficiently strong and independent to knock the hyphen out of the LiberalLabour Party the subject of the inadvisableness of having more than two parties became a platform subject at elections. It was quite natural that when the, Reform Party came into power it should claim that the political fight was between itself and Labour,, and the intrusion of a third party split votes. It was political talk. With the decadence of the old Liberal Party the effort to return to the old two-party basis, became stronger. In Britain, where the system of party government arose, and in New Zealand, where it was faithfully copied, the basis for very many years was two parties. From time to time certain sections of a party hived off through some cause or another. But generally in a few years there was an amalgamation or absorption in one of the parties. But of late there has been a change in conditions in the Mother of Parliaments. Labour has become a third party, and the Liberals, as in New Zealand, have fallen on evil days. This was to be expected. Labour, apart from its original mission as the organisation of the “ workers,” attracted the radical thinkers who. hitherto had been associated with the Liberals. It drew to its ranks all those who did not consider the other parties were progressive enough. Whether Britain will ever get back to the two-party system is doubtful.

In the Dominion a fourth party has sprung into existence. The Country Party has so far not secured a seat in ' the House, and the movement Is confined to the Auckland province. Though it has announced a “national” policy, yet the fact cannot be obscured that it is primarily a sectional party to fight for the interests of the farmers. There is nothing wrong about this. The farmers have just as much right as Labour or%ny other section of the community to take political action! But if the Country Party gains ground at this election; it will add to the complications arising from a multiplicity of parties or interests. With two parties it has been essential that the Government should strive for the benefit of all sections. Such can only be accomplished .by , indirect giving and taking. So far there is no indication that the Continental group system is to supersede party government. But is it patent that if four parties existed in the House, there would be a strong tendency to' the group method. Further, there would scon spring up the direct method of bargaining and bartering votes. And after all there is very little difference between the direct and indirect methods when it comes to practical results. No party or group ever gets quite what it starts out for. But it is most unlikely that this election will terminate otherwise than in the retention of three parties. No doubt there will be a great deal of talk about vote splitting. That is part and parcel of the political game. It may or it may not be that with the passing of time the United Party will divide itself between the other two parties. But the indications are that the time is not ripe at present for such action. On the other hand, if the mental calibre of the House is not improved it is possible that the group system may develop rapidly.