The Daily News. FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1922. PETTY POLITICS.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 July 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JULY 21, 1922. PETTY POLITICS.

The spectacle presented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wil ford) and the Leader of the extreme Labor Party (Mr. Holland), engaged in political laundry work in the House earlier in the week, was one of those events which display how politics can descend to a level of an unseemly • wrangle, while the truth is buried under a mass of ingenious casuistry designed for the confusion of the public. Surely the time of Parliament, which is paid for by the over-bur-dened and long-suffering taxpayers. has been already more than amply wasted over senseless motions of no-confidence by the parties to the dispute in question, without the infliction of public arguments as to whether Mr. Holland or Mr. Wil ford—or both — were guilty of committing the heinous offence of resorting to what has been described as terminological inexactitudes. If either party were aggrieved over alleged negotiations to prevent, vote-split-ting or carry proportional representation, the manifest course to pursue was to thresh the matter out at a conference between the two parties, and not waste the time of Parliament, or the money raised from the taxpayers, in an unseemly and absolutely useless wrangle in the House. Apparently whatever misunderstandings have taken place between the Opposition and the Labor leaders were conveniently placed on the shoulders of the intermediaries —a class in the community who are always to be found and made use of as scapegoats. It is neither necessary nor desirable to enter into the details of this squabble. Mi. Holland made his attack with considerable force, but his main points were weakened by their controversial nature. Both sides admit that there were negotiations for an understanding between Liberals and Labor with the object of securing a sufficient majority in the House to carry proportional representation, but the extent of these negotiations, and the conditions attached thereto, are matters of dispute. Mr. Holland relied on a letter from Mr. Maddison, ‘"one of the old-time Liberal-Labor followers,” wherein certain conditions were stated as having been already submitted to Mr. Wilford, who emphatically repudiates having agreed to the proposed basis, or any basis. The authenticity of Mr. Holland’s evidence, supplied by the editor of the Maoriland Worker, was brushed aside by Mr. Wilford as mere hearsay matter, for which neither he nor his party were responsible. Yet he admits calling his party together to discuss a proposal to prevent vote-splitting, and the executive turned it down. Obviously they could not turn down a myth. As a matter of fact Mr. Wilford could not dispute the existence of overtures, though he shoulders th-e whole of the responsibility, and in that way sought to excul pate his party from the onus of Mr. Holland’s charges. He asserts that all he did was to see if he could prevent vote-splitting. To appreciate the full significance of this admission it is necessary to recognise that such prevention might lead to the Liberal Party obtaining a majority in Parliament, so that the prospect of domination was a factor that was certainly worth sacrifices, but Mr. Wilford claims “there was no alliance with the Labor Party, and no arrangement as to policy.” There can. however, be'no doubt that Mr. Wilford was willing to get Labor’s help “to prevent the vote-splitting.” as a means to obtaining power, but the Labor Party found the Liberals, as Mr. Holland remarked, “ facing both ways.” It is Sorry business and does not raise the tone of the Jlpuas.