AFTER THE BY-ELECTION

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue 32, 8 February 1943, Page 2

AFTER THE BY-ELECTION

\I7HATEVER they may say publicly, it is unlikely that the leaders of * the Labour party and of the National party privately find cause for satisfaction in the outcome of the Christchurch East by-election. Labour, which in 1938 had a towering majority, has retained one of its greatest strongholds with a minority of the total votes cast. The National party, although it had a strong candidate, finished third and not second. Mr. Lee's Democratic Labour party made a gain substantial enough to entitle it to be taken seriously as a prospective upsetter of political applecarts. But no party polled votes equal in number to the electors who chose not to vote at all. The fact that there were more than seven thousand of these must be regarded as one of the most significant features of the by-election, indicating that no political party in the country to-day inspires intense enthusiasm, or even intense hostility. In'fcther words, a proportion of people large enough to be decisive in any electorate is dissatisfied with the Government policy and administration, but it is not irresistibly attracted by the policy of any other party. This conclusion is not affected by the fact that the total vote at byelections is usually small, for it is the business of any and every political party so to impress the electors with the importance of supporting it that they will be eager to vote for it. Judged by this test, all three parties failed in Christchurch East. It would be hard to say which of the two main parties has been furnished by the by-election with most food for thought. The Labour leaders may try to console themselves by reflecting that many of their erstwhile followers regarded the election of their candidate as beyond doubt, and did not trouble to vote; but this explanation would be unconvincing in face of the fact that the Prime Minister and several other Ministers went to Christchurch in order to induce them to do so. Fairly obviously, the vote-pulling power of the Labour Ministers and the party machine is not what it was, and those Labour members who, unlike the late Mr. Armstrong, numbered their lastelection majority in hundreds and not in thousands, will to-day have been thinking with some foreboding of-their prospects. They may calculate, although they cannot be certain, that the Democratic Labour party polled its maximum in Christchurch East, but the same party need poll only a few hundred votes in each of, say, two dozen electorates to deprive them of their seats, and the Government of its majority. The Leader of the Opposition has discerned in the by-election result a "landslide of public opinion against the Government." If it was, it cannot be represented as a landslide intended to favour the National party A great part of the National party's criticism of the Government is based on the contention that too often it has put party interests, prejudices and predilections first, and the country's interests second. The essence of the Democratic Labour party's criticism of the Government is that it has watered the pure milk of Socialism. While Mr. Holland says Labour has gone too far, Mr. Lee vehemently complains that it has not gone far enough. There is thus no approach to an identity of views between these opponents of the Government. In so far as the by-election indicated political tendencies it showed a tendency to the Left and not to the Right. Through the vagaries of our system of voting, the National party may gain from the split in the vote that once was all Labour's, but such a gain v/ould be extremely insecure and temporary. Christchurch East has made manifest the need for both the National party and Labour each to reconsider the policy upon which it bases its appeal to the electors. The Labour party no doubt will devote itself to that task at its Easter conference; it is for the National party, and particularly for its rank-and-file followers, to bestir themselves vigorously with a similar purpose.