THE SAME OLD GAME.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 482, 21 June 1890, Page 4

THE SAME OLD GAME.

The latest political news from the great centre of New Zealand’s political life is, we are told, that Mr John Bailance, M.H.R., will move a hostile vote on the address-in-reply, or a direct vote of no-confidence immediately afterwards. Mr Bailance, as we all know, is the recognised leader of the Opposition. What particular political principles he advocates as opposed to those held by the present leader of the Govern mont, does not seem to be of any serious importance when playing the old game that our legislators have been amusing themselves with for so many years—to wit, the great and noble jpime of office-grabbing and office-holding. Let- anyone glance back at the names of the Ministers who have successively governed New Zealand. A student of our past political history cannot but be struck with the frequency with which tho same

names appear, sometimes as Opposition leaders, sometimes ‘‘reconstructed'’ into a united Government, then again in Opposition. Then there is a pronounced Conservative Ministry, then a pronounced Radical one, then the Conservative leader and the extreme Radical leader join together, the Radical lions Stout and

Bailance, and the Conservative lamb Vogel, lie down together and chew the sweets of office in company. As the general election will shortly be on, let us analyse past Ministries, and pick those of our present pi’ominent politicians whose names have most frequently figured in our legislative high places. First of all, wo discover the name of F. Whitaker in the first Responsible Cabinet, known as the Bell-Sewell Ministry, in 1856. In the following Fox Ministry, in the same year, 1856—Fox, by tho way, was at that time looked upon as an interesting specimen of an advanced Radical reformer—we find the name of John Hall, who was then, and is now and always will be, a Conservative of the Conservatives. In the following Stafford Cabinet, a Ministry led by a man ostensibly in pronounced opposition to the Fox policy, we find our old champion again, F. Whitaker. This is a curious combination, because in the next Ministry, called the WhitakerFox Government which existed in 1863-64, we find the two political heroes, who in the previous session were fighting to the death, now clasping one another round the neck in a close embrace. Then follows the Weld Ministry in 1864-5, when H. A. Atkinson turns up as Defence Minister. This statesman, it will be seen as this history proceeds, took so kindly to office that somehow or other he has hardly e\er been out of office since. Stafford ousted Weld and took charge of affairs from 1865-69, a°sisted by the übiquitous John Hall, xvho, it will be noticed, was always there when wanted, a striking present characteristic remarked about him in several leading papers lately. After the StafFord-Hall regime, tho pro* sumabiyextreme Radical reformer. William Fox, turns up again in 1869, and forms a Ministry which continues until 1872, in which we again find our old Conservative friend, John Hall, together with Vogel and Ormond. The Waterhouse Minieti’y follows, in which we still find Vogel, John Hall, and Ormond. Then followed a Fox Ministry with Fox and Vogel. Then a Pollen Ministry with Vogel and Atkinson. Then an Atkinson Ministry in 1876 with our old friend, F. Whitaker, Ormond and John Hall again. Then what is called an Atkineon “reconstructed ” Ministry, in which Atkinson still reigns, and Pollen, Whitaker, and Ormond are also assisting. Then came a glorious and happy release from this continuous Conservatism, unsatisfactory and disappointing though it was from certain points of view, namely the Grey regime from 1877 to 1879. Then followed the John Hall Ministry, in which our friends Atkinson and F. Whitaker again come pi'ominently forward, and this Government lasts till 1882. Then follows the Whitaker-Atkinson regime for a short period, and this is again replaced by the Stout-Vogel Government, when once more is seen the astounding spectacle of advanced Radicals and a pronounced Conservative allying themselves together to rule over a democratic people. Then followed in 1887 the Ministry which is still in existence, known as the Atkinson Ministry, in .which popping up again is out old friend F. Whitaker, who made hiS debut in 1856, just four-and-thirty years ago.

Now, those who read this list of names, must allow that the holders of them hate practically had the guiding of the destinies of this young nation in their hands, and We would like to ask them if they are quite satisfied with the present position of the colohy, after all their kind and fostering care and attention, it has been well said that “No politicians, however extravagantly and disgracefully they managed the affairs of this country, could really ruin it.” It is not in mortals, it would seem, to command either ruin or success, bub, certainly in our case, our legislators have done what they possibly could to ensure the former.

Bub let us return to the proposed want-of-confidence motion shortly to be met by the Atkinsonian Government at the hands of the leader of the Opposition, Mr John Ballance. Firstly, of what is Mr Ballance a leader ? What represents the Opposition he leads ? Is it a majority of the members of the House who hold views opposed to the policy of the Government ? By no means ; the Government have no policy. Sir Harry Atkinson asserted last session most emphatically, “ There is no such thing as party in this House or out of it.” Of course, what he implied was that neither the Government nor the so-called Opposition were strictly a party, as neither had any well-defined policy. This is substantially true. He also coolly asserted that the country had no policy either. That is by no means so certain. He may possibly have his eyes opened in this matter before many weeks are over.

What the colony wants is a party of progress, and neither the present Premier and his few attached followers, nor Mr John Ballance and his personal friends, come up to anything approaching the leader required at the present crisis of our affairs. Such a man must pub all party feelings on one side ; he must be filled with anearnesb desire to sweep away, as Cromwell did, the glaring abuses which now exist in the working of our most im portanb institutions. This, and nob the lust* of office, must be his recommendation.

Will the necessity that exists produce the man, or shall we sit quietly by and see our rulers contentedly playing the same old game they have been playing since 1856 1