"LIBERALS UNDAUNTED"
Sat,—Dr. Murray, in your issue of the ath May, writes that a marriage should be 'arranged and duly solemnised with pomp and ceremony be- tween the Liberals and Liberal Nationals. By all means let us admit no impediment to the marriage of true minds, but is it not necessary, if we-are marriage brokers, to see that we_. are not coupling incompatibles? Dr. Murray speaks of a sort of marriage in 1923, backed by a joint manifesto, which broke down. But 4tat was precisely the kind of marriage which he desires to see repeated between two sets of rank and file and two sets of leaders (not 'quite a marriage because we were not endowed with all the worldly goods of the other party!) ; and it broke down, "with results which still continue," and which Dr. Murray pre- sumably deplorps. The present situation is infinitely preferable to a marriage de convenancedand a subsequent divorce.
I infer that the first thing to ascertain—and I am confident that I am interpreting the minds of the rank and file in Saying so—is that we have "true minds" which are agreed on the essentials. Dr. Murray admits that we are a party of the Left, and it would be silly, if one must use that nomenclature, to deny that we have always been and are likely always to be, to the Left of the Conservative Party. been, goes on to remark, however, that the plea is not helpful, and adds that the natural rejoinder to it is that Liberals should join what looks to be the party of the Left. He does not indicate whether he himself would make the rejoinder, and. leaves us wondering whether he would prefer us to regard ourselves as a party of the Right, in which case the natural rejoinder would be that we should join what looks to be the party of the Right. Whatever Dr. Murray's views -on that aspect may be, some of his leaders have left us in no doubt. I need cite only Mr. Mabane, who sees the greatest hope for the political future in a working arrangement between Liberals, Con- servatives and other anti-Socialists, and makes is sufficiently clear that he regards Liberal re-union as only a step towards association with the Conservative Party.
The Liberal Party, rank and file, organisations and leaders, will refuse to fight under that standard. It is an independent party, which fought as such at the General Election, and represents views and policies which neither of the other parties will sponsor. It has proved its independenc:-. in Parliament by voting for or against the Government in accordance with the merits, as assessed by Liberal members, of the questions at issue.
I believe I am correct in saying that the Liberal National Members in the House have voted consistently with the Conservative Party. The crux of the matter is just this: Will Liberal Nationals agree to oppose both Conservatives and Socialists in the constituencies? If that is answered in the affirmative, even in constituencies with Liberal National repre- sentatives, negotiation may be fruitful and co-operation easy. If it is answered in the negative, negotiation would be as little likely to be pro- ductive as would have been a move in Dr. Murray's and my youth to re-unite the Liberals InAd the Liberal Unionists.—I am, Sir, Your
Previous page
