THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1330 A WOBBLY STAND

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1038, 31 July 1930, Page 10

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1330 A WOBBLY STAND

rsee men trifling with their own best principles and breaking promises is not a pleasing sight. It is bad enough to see it in ordinary affairs, but it is worse when disclosed in politics, for members of Parliament represent all the people and not merely a few individuals ■whose character may be unstable. Such a spectacle has been provided in the House of Representatives by the Labour Party in its attitude toward the Reform Opposition’s challenge to the Government on the Forbes Budget. Mr. H. E. Holland, as one speaking with authority and presumably fully conscious of his responsibility and duty as a political leader, has made it clear that Labour will vote against Mr. Coates’s no-confidence amendment. The reason for the party’s attitude has been expressed in terms which suggest that politicians are no better than most people imagine them to be at their best. ‘•What we are doing,” declared Mr. Holland, “is.simply refusing to exchange bad for worse. To put the United Party out in order to put the Reform Party in would be like exchanging a returned cheque marked ‘not sufficient funds’ for a counterfeit banknote.” That is Labour’s estimate of an impecunious Government and, on the opposite side, a party with “a long list of misdeeds to its debit.” Does Mr. Holland honestly believe that the country is so poor in its political representation and service that it has been reduced to a choice between administrative insolvency and counterfeiting? Of course, the Labour Leader knows that he merely has been talking hyperbolic nonsense in order to save his party’s meagre reputation as a force in politics. Indeed, Mr. Holland has not been able to balance his party’s attitude toward a crucial test on questions of the first importance with its own principles to safeguard working people against ruthless exploitation by an extravagant Administration. On a floating foundation of contradictions and counterfeit argument the party has propped itself up in an attitude that only can be described adequately as a wobbly stand.

There is little or no dignity in Labour’s singular position. This truth is demonstrated beyond doubt by the nature of Mr. Holland’s “No” to his own “Yes.” Note the contrariety of the Labour Leader’s definition of party policy in respect of attempting to maintain some of its cherished principles while being determined to reject the “counterfeit banknote of Reform”: “The Labour Party’s position is very clear and definite. We will vote to turn the United Party out on the first opportunity. We will not give a vote that wonld bring this country the disaster of another term of office on the part of the Reform Party.” It is necessary to cite these statements in order to reveal the wobbly stand the Labour Party has taken. Its position is so clear and definite that, to say the least* it is ludicrous. What exactly is Labour’s position in a muddle of desperate financial circumstances? The party has the necessary common sense to know that the Government’s fiscal impositions and its Budget proposals will do the country serious harm in the ugly forms of trade depression, increased unemployment, financial stringency, and the paralysis of enterprise. Labour also knows that workers, with no substantial reserves to draw from for support, will suffer most in the processes of general depression. All their cheques will be returned with tlie disconcerting mark, “not sufficient'funds.” And thousands of them will have to rely upon counterfeit polities and palliatives from all the rival parties in the poor House of Representatives. It is plainly the duty of the Labour Party to compel the rash Government to modify its exactions even though compulsion should precipitate an emergency General Election. An electoral test would be expensive, but it could not be more extravagant and hurtful than the Government’s raiding policy. If the Labour Party really intends to vote to turn the United Government out on the first opportunity, surely that opportunity has come with the Forbes Budget? What does Labour mean to do if it finds that Rfeform is in complete agreement with it on bad proposals of the Government to raise money in callous indifference to the acute social distress that must be caused by imposing on the country an additional burden of £.2.000,000 in taxation? Labour may wobble again, but the party should realise clearly that wobblers do not stand for a long time. The Dominion wants first-class politics, not sordid political bargaining.