THE PRICE OF PRINCIPLE

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 46, 16 October 1931, Page 2

THE PRICE OF PRINCIPLE

Developments in the political field within the past day or two appear certain to lead to one of two conclusions. The

nrst of these is a crisis culminating in the collapse of the Coalition Government and an early appeal to the country. The second, and, politicians being what they are, perhaps the more probable, is an arrangement which will enable the Government to carry on and members generally to retain their jobs for six months or so beyond the time constitutionally provided. As a result of the bickering and petty party jealousy which has become evident amongst the rank and file of the United Party, the country has been given to understand that one of the terms of the Coalition agreement was the postponement for 12 months of the general election due before the end of this year. If such a condition was in fact demanded by the United Party and conceded by the Reform Party, what little faith in the present Government the country has managed to retain will be completely extinguished in amazement and disgust. We say "if" with the desire to be fair, but there seems little doubt. in view of the source of such information as is available, that such a condition was demanded. There are conceivable circumstances which would justify the making and acceptance of such a condition, such as the existence of a state of grave national peril and the necessity for time to put into operation a definite and declared policy to meet it. In the present case, however, neither of these conditions applies. Grave though the present financial and economic situation is, it can hardly be described in this sense as a national peril ; and so f ar as can be ascertained, the United Party has no policy to meet it, disclosed or undis- 1 closed. Had they possessed a policy, it is certain they would never have invited the Reform Party to join them in putting j

it into operation. It therefore is difficult to place any other interpretation upon the demands for so long a postponement of the elections than that it was the quid pro quo demanded by a minority Government from the Reform' Party as the price of a share in the plums of office. In other words, the United' Party seems to have been ready to sell the country to its opponents in exchange for a definite extension of their luerative jobs. If this was not the, case, it can only be because there was so little essential difference between the policies of the two parties that an arrangement between them entailed no vital sacrifice of principle. This, of course, each party has strenuously denied and no doubt still would do so. So much for the United Party's part in the matter. Culpable though it appears to be, it is not alone guilty. The Reform Party must shoulder its share of the responsibility. Rank and file Reformers strenuously deny the existence of any arrangement for a 12 months' postponement, but the party leaders are strangely silent in face of the charge levelled against them of a desire to break the agreement. An outstanding feature of authoritative Reform replies to questions regarding the party's attitude concerning the postponement of the elections has been their non-committal nature.'The question there fore inevitably arises, is Reform a party to some such arrangement as that claimed by United members, and if not, what are its real intentions? Is it also prepared to sacrifice principles to party interest and now engaged in a campaign of manoeuvring for political advantage, prepared to force the issue one way or the other as circumstances favour its own interests? These are questions to which the country will expect a prompt and unequivocal answer from the Reform Party, no less than it will require an explanation from its Coalition partners of their reasons for demanding the definite prolongation of their tenure of their seats for 12 months in the entire absence of any policy which couid possibly justify or exciise their action.