Untitled

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17613, 16 November 1922, Page 6

Oufc of the mouths of —even Labour candidates. Speaking at Maori Hill the ether night, Mr J. W. Munro, Labour candidate for Dunedin North, charaoj terised as "absolute twa'ddle" Mr Wilford's statement that "some kind of an understanding exists between the Massey Party and the Labour Party for the purpose of fighting the Liberal Party." Nobody knew better than. Mr Wilford himself that that was nonsense. "What is going to happen is that after next election the Labour and Liberal parties are going to be strong enough to put out the 'Massey Party for all time." It is well to know the worst, though the Labour prophet might have contented himself with predicting the extinction of Reform for, say, a generation; "all time" is a little beyond his ken

It was once suggested, we think by an English writer, that before a man was permitted to offer himself as a candidate for Parliament he should be obliged to pass some sort of an examination in the more recent political history of his" country. We are reminded of this excellent idea by the assertion by a North Island Labour candidate that the Massey Party "had brought the country back to the days of soup kitchens." When a candidate of that class is at a loss for something nasty to say about the ReforAi Party, he ejaculates "soup kitchens!", Yet, if those candidates who desire so earnestly to help to govern New Zealand knew just a little more of its history than the events of the past two or three years they would realise that it was a, tactical blunder to remind electors with botter memories that there were soup kitchens in the days of Ballance and Seddon, and that there have been none singe the Reform Party came into office.

Advocates of proportional representor tion reiterate, to the; point of boredom, that the present Government is a minority Government. Mr Massey has already explainedthat when he end Sir* Josoph Ward returned from London three yeans ago they had to go to the country so soon that there was no time in which* to organise properly for the flection, and that therefore in fifteen electorates there was no Reform oandidate. Hie calculated that that meant that probably 90,000 votes for Reform were not recorded, though the other side count them as having been cast against the Government. This year the P.R. people /will have a good dteal less to talk about, for the Reform Party is oontesting 76 out of the 80 electorates, a fact which Mr Massey regards rightly as in soime respects a unigue record,, nxid ns striking evidenoe'of the srtrengtk of the party, "as a political entity with clear-out principles and a definite programme of national progress."

There is one circumstance connected with proportional representation to whictt its supporters, quite naturally, neror allude. That is that its adbption here would involve the abolition of the "country quota.'' If they doubt this, ,tliey have it on the authority of Mr Massey .> that a representative ,of the English Proportional Representation Socieiy admitted that that would be the case. The abolition of the country quota is, of course, advocated loudly by certain city_ candidates who ask indignantly why acres and not people should be represented. The fact is, as Mr Masaey eaid lust week, a. member represent 20j000 people in a towa as easily as 16,000 or 16,000- in the .country because he can reach them so much more easily. If the country quota, were done away with, the whole Dominion would have to be re-divided Into 80 electorates each containing aa nearly as possible the same number of voters, which would increaee the number of city constituencies at the expense of the country. Country electors have, therefore, & good reason for voting against any candidate who advocates P.R.