The Sun THURSDAY, MAT 24, 1928. FARMING POLITICS

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 362, 24 May 1928, Page 8

The Sun THURSDAY, MAT 24, 1928. FARMING POLITICS

IT is clear that many farmers throughout the country have no * faith in any one of the three political parties in Parliament or in the three of them lumped together as a heavy, blundering, legislative body. The delegates to the annual conference of the Auckland Provincial Farmers’ Union were given an opportunity at Hamilton yesterday,, to put themselves “on-side” in the political field, blit declined, by a large majority, to tie the union to any party. In view of the formation of a new political party or, rather, the revival of an old party, the Liberal-Nationalists, with a new name, the Uniteds, for the general elections this year, the decision of organised farmers in this province is an interesting one. It is of exceptional interest because it demonstrates the fact that the farming community has become tired of being crushed between the upper and nether millstone of party politics, which too often merely means all talk and no progressive work, and intends to exercise its political power and value. Thus, the decisive balance of opinion in the Auckland farmers’ conference favoured direct action in polities, borrowing the sinister phrase from the extreme Socialists without, of course, any intention of using it in the same sinister ways. It should be noted particularly that the Te Awamutu delegate, who moved against direct action, urged that, in his district, a Reform stronghold, the Country Party movement only antagonised members of the Farmers’ Union. This argument received very little practical sympathy. Then, Mr. W. Lee Martin, the Labour M.P. for Raglan, formerly one of the strongest of Reform strongholds in the country, argued shrewdly that if the union was to get anywhere it must get into the political movement. Hitherto, indeed, he had opposed the idea, but now he saw the need of it. Of course, Mr. Martin did not go as far as to suggest that the union should take direct political action and vote for Labour, but doubtless he expects the Raglan electors to catch his meaning. If it be essential that farmers must fight politically for themselves in the scramble for legislative concessions, administrative favours, and all sorts of subsidies and doles, then they had better prepare for a prolonged battle against odds—quite as protracted a conflict as that which brought the original and real Reform Party out of the wilderness with banners flying and with so much point and weight in their broadswords as to strike terror in the enemy’s camp and drive the Liberals into something like oblivion. To-day, Sir Joseph Ward, the lone leader of himself as the Liberal Party, is the sole survivor, happy at the moment in London, and free of the necessity to masquerade in new colours and devise a policy. In the event of the Farmers’ Union going at full strength to the polls, it will have to accept the inevitable result. It will succeed in complicating contests, but probably will learn that, in politics, two sides of a triangle put together, are not greater than the other. It is not surprising that Mr. Martin should change his mind about the Farmers’ Union getting into the political movement. The deeper it goes in the better chance there is for Labour to swim easily on the surface of the disturbed pool. But is not the whole business of farmers’ hostility to the Reform Government a joke? If the Government is not the friend of the farmer, which other party may be hailed as a benefactor? UNION JACK AND UNION FLAG REVIVED bitterness is being manifested in South Africa over the question of the new national Hag of the Union. It had been thought that the question was settled with satisfaction to both sides when the new flag was agreed upon, but a regrettable situation has now arisen over the limitations with regard to public institutions on which the Union Jack may be flown. Capetown, strongly British, despite its large proportion of Dutch, demands that the Union Jack shall be flown on The Castle, where it has waved ever since the second British occupation, in 1806, while the people of Natal, intensely British, insist upon the unrestricted flying of the insignia of British sovereignty on ail public buildings. The flag controversy was at its height in June of last year, when the Dutch Prime Minister, General Hertzog, tried to rush through Parliament a Bill to authorise a South African flag in which the emblems of the Dutch largely predominated. One of the most earnest opponents of the Bill was another Dutchman, General Smuts, the Leader of the Opposition, who declared that a telescope would he needed to see the Union Jack in the proposed new flag. Unfortunately, politics more than national sentiment, appeared to inflame the controversy, which led the “Cape Times” to declare: “Better anything in the world than a party flag, a creature of politics and racialism, masquerading as a national flag.” Last month, General Smuts, speaking in Capetown as leader of the South African Party, made a hot attack on the Nationalist Government, which, he said perpetuated harmful feuds, and was only kept in power by an unholy alliance with the Labour Party—“a party that for all purposes was dead in the country”—and wherein even Cabinet Ministers were at loggerheads. Referring to the flag question, General Smuts said he had been actuated only by motives to maintain the honour of both sections of the people, and he claimed that to-day both English and African-speaking Afrikanders could hold up their heads proudly to the Union Jack. To-day’s cabled message states that the Prime Minister is conferring with Dr. F. S. Malan, who is Chairman of the South African Party in the Cape Province. An agreement is earnestly to be desired, for if the dispute is permitted to develop, it can only perpetuate the racial feuds that have done so much harm to South African politics and have doubtless militated considerably against the progress of the Union.