A POLITICAL SURVEY.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 306, 19 September 1929, Page 1

A POLITICAL SURVEY.

PARTY BICKERINGS. The Situation To-day. (By “X ,” in the Evening Post.) The following article is written by a contributor, who is not a party man, but is a close student of politics:— That the country is tired of party bickerings and because of the urgency of the need for serious attention on the part of our best political brains in and out of Parliament, the people demand better returns from its representatives.

These words seem to express a sentiment which reflects public opinion throughout the country to-day. One need offer no apology for taking part in a public discussion on our political problems. Indeed it seems that to mass apathy may be attributed most of our political and economic troubles. It is not necessary to review the past in detail, nor is it necessary to take a party view of our political troubles. The Seddons and the Masseys reigned their record terms. Sir Joseph Ward filled in important gaps. Their supporters were, after all, the same people. Despite all that is said to the contrary, party politics are not inherent in the majority of the people of this country. They are swayed to and from any party according to their attitudes towards current The occupation of the Treasury benches today by Sir Joseph Ward and his politically juvenile Cabinet, is merely the effect .and result of an intercepted transition of political favour. The movement had been long delayed. The lengthy Reform reign was carried past its tenth year only by Mr. Massey’s great personal power, just as was the case with Mr. Seddon. Then came Mr. Coates and the rare phenomenon of a virile and sweeping majority in the first election after. The constituents have been busy ever since in removing the dust. Then the last election. Line of Demarcation.

The writer joined with many others in viewing the political position altogether free of party. He was not one of those who urged the abandonment of party politics. But he recognised that the crushing price sometimes paid for its upkeep. There are times such as at present when the demarcation is visionary. There is in point of fact really very little difference in the politics of the United and the Reform. It might not be too much to say that what little difference there is, has been made apparent by expedience. The main political topic for comment at present may be set out quite fairly in the question, “ How did Sir Joseph get away with his seventy millions platform ?” On the promise of cheap money, plenty of it, and all without extra taxation, almost a miracle was performed. But it was not only that. The constituency had reached a condition of political flux. Deep down in the breasts of the people was a feeling of hopelessness and despair. The Reform Party had taken its seventeen years of rule. Hard-head-ed men like Sir Francis Bell, beyond the range of the ballot box bullet, stampeded the corridors. Flagrancy in the expenditure of party funds at the great “ The-man-who-gets-things-done ” election of 1925 brought about the morning after effect and the kybosh was administered in 1928. Continued unemployment and high taxation were only factors. Reform lost ground. It is of no use belittling the extent of the slide either. It beggars Sir Joseph nothing to say that the opening was a bald invitation to men of much less fame. The seal of demise of a great party was autographed by the vote on the all-advised no-confi-dence motion moved by Mr. Coates early in this session. It may be

safely summarised that the Reform Party has receded in public favour and largely because of the need of stronger helmsmen. The United Party is now in charge of the country’s affairs. It might aptly be said that while Reform had a good team, the United Party has a captain but no team. Certain it is that call was so urgent and so unexpected that no one had time to make up a full team. Hence the extraordinary spectacle of inexperienced men going straight to Cabinet and the amazing oddity of Ministerial humiliation by censure from the chief.

Can the United Party Hold Office? The United Party has been in office for the best part of a year. Time enough has passed to enable it to meet the first blows of the Opposition and to discern the flow of public opinion. The political firstwater questions to-day are: Can the Uniied Party hold office, and what Would be its fate at another election, extraordinary or otherwise ? It would seem to be a correct interpretation of public opinion to say that Sir Joseph would have emerged with a clear majority had he chosen to seek it by an election earlier in this year. It would appear also that it is equally certain that the psychological disturbance which at election time found vent in a swing to Liberalism has passed the cyclonic stage. The people have been- given what they asked for, but the goods do not ring true. True, there has not been time enough for most things, but there has certainly been time enough to realise that the high points in the electioneering promises —the tilings that captivated the people—were myths. Substitution of cheap money and no extra taxation, with no cheap money by extra taxation is poor salesmanship. Much of the slipping has followed the extraordinary case of the “ loan mystery.” Extraordinary— not because of the facts, but because of the indiscretion on the part of the Prime Minister and in his obstinacy to an apology. One can understand the need for a scapegoat, human or otherwise, to atone for the hauling down of the election banner. But it was totally unbecoming of Sir Joseph Ward, not only to indulge in such tactics as blaming Mr. Downie Stewart, but also in trying to put it across 'the public.

Wasted Energy. At present the air is full of political sensations. The extra primage duty, the extra land tax, an occasional mystery, a row or two, each have their angles and each carry votes. The Leader of the Labour Party looks on with the complacency of a dictating monarch. At no time in the history of the Dominion Parliament have the people been regaled with so much wasted energy. Members bank on publicity by perpetually interjecting hits at speakers. The same people squeal when hit back. Days are lost in the upkeep of personal pride. Tempers go astray, and with parties so evenly divided all have eyes on the ringing of the bells. Those who see a political break-up in the features of the week are mistaken. There will be no adverse vote on a no-confidence motion. Labour only can bring that about, and that party is far too subtle and wary. The political coach may want a change of horses, but the man on the box will drive the willing brumbies at the collar at present, as far | as they will go. There is nothing in the air at pre- j sent which cannot be passed over i without a sensation. In a bran bag adventure, however, one might be justified in anticipating more serious possibilities later in the session. Assuming that to be the case, and another election is forced on the country, what would be the position? On the part of the Reform Party the issues seem to be written. That party has still a solid backing. The glow of its embers is, it is true, very dim. As at present constituted, another election would extinguish them. New leaders, the old fire might resume its place as a political furnace. On the other hand, United has the day and the glamour. Stupid and futile embarrassments discountenanced— more team work—good health to its leader, and the transition intercepted by the last election would mould itself into a return to tranquility of the older forces of Liberalism—Labour notwithstanding.