Future of Party Politics

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 962, 3 May 1930, Page 10

Future of Party Politics

DEFECTS IN TRIPLE SYSTEM

THE Hon. W. Dow aie Stewart, who was Minister of Finance in the Coates Administration, is satisfied that the United Government is crumbling J He is of opinion that the party will split and its sections move toward Reform and Labour according to the colour of the members. In an analytical address to Parnell electors at Remuera last evening, the Reform member for Dunedin West dikeussed the future of parties, •

“X am now bowling instead of batting—which is interesting in its way,” Mr. Stewart said naively. In a survey of the political situation now ruling, Mr. Stewart said the country had arrived at a stage where the three-party system seemed to have become established. It was not wise to make prophesy how long the triple system would endure. There were peculiar difficulties, because the constitution was designed for two parties. The existing order was unsatisfactory both to Parliament and to the electorate, because there was no guarantee that legislation enacted met with the approval of the country. In the present circumstances the Labour Party, now the second opposition, had been put back a step at the latest election. Labour considered Reform stood in its way to promotion. In billiards parlance the party was “snookered,” or in golf, "stymied.” That party now exercised itself in wreaking vengeance upon Reform wherever opportunity offered. “Last session,” remarked Mr. Stewart, “the United Party and Labour were associated in what might be termed an unholy matrimony. “If you return Mr. Endean,” Mr. Stewart added, “you will help to forbid the banns.” It was extremely difficult to get rid of the three-party system. If Parliament went to the country there would be little prospect of a solution. The next best thing would be for the United Party, which now seemed to be crumbling, to split, and those of differing thought join with Reform or Labour. It was unsatisfactory that practically only legislation which suited the Labour Party should be put through. “A CHANGE OF HEART” Mr. Stewart also examined the trend of the Labour movement. For years Labour had been preaching Continental socialism, which among other things taught that the “bosses” were “robbers and parasites.” The workers however, found difficulty in squaring that doctrine with experience —the “boss,” they learned, was not such a bad fellow at all. The result was that such wild talk defeated Its own object. The position today was that Labour

was beginning to tread on the soft pedal. Adjustments were being made to its platform. “Whether that is a tactical move or a change of heart, I cannot say,” was the speaker’s comment. Labour claimed that the existing social order with its attendant evils, which everyone acknowledged, had broken down. Reform held that the system now obtaining, while capable of improvement, provided homes and work for thousands and that the blots, regrettable though they were, were not such as to warrant drastic upset of society. It was better to follow safe and sure methods and to move slowly in social reform. Mr. Stewart was impressed by an interview given by Mr. D. G. Sullivan, Labour member for Avon, on his return from the Easter Labour Conference. He declared that the conference had laid itself out to find the common-sense solution of problems before it, rather than to adopt drastic methods. Labour was not making headw’ay in New Zealand with its present platform and the party saw that it w*as necessary to take a reasonable view. Labour saw' what was being done overseas. All parties were in unison in aiming for the w r elfare of the country, but differed in method. The main line of demarcation lay between Reform and Labour. PARTY OF DISCONTENT “The United Party is essentially a party of discontent—discontent with the long regime of Reform,” continued Mr. Stew’art. He was not surprised at that, but his surprise had been measured in the extent of that discontent. It had been a great miracle that Reform had. been returned in 1922, after having had to enact a great deal of unpopular legislation following on the Great War. was a standing rule of British people to demand a change after a long Parliament. It was not unnatural that Reform should be turned out. The electorate would see that after all Reform was not as bad a ® th ? S? rt ? was Painted—(applause) —■that the interests of the Dominion were best served by making no spectacular promises.