The Press THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1938. Municipal Politics

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22371, 7 April 1938, Page 10

The Press THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 1938. Municipal Politics

What was most interesting in the speech with which Mr R. M. Macfarlane opened his campaign for the mayoralty was also least reasonable. Mr Macfarlane declared that it was now “ im- “ possible to divorce party politics from local “ body affairs,” since “ the growth of municipal “ administration in recent years had been en- “ tirely different from that of the past.” Consequently, “it is vitally important that there “should be a Labour majority on local bodies, “ so that the Government may be helped in its “work.” Should the electors disregard this argument and fail to empower Labour majorities on local bodies in Christchurch and elsewhere, then “ the position of the Government “ and of the workers will be very difficult.” This sounds well but it is almost wholly meaningless. There is no such profound change in the character of local administration as Mr Macfarlane referred to but did not attempt to describe. He would flounder badly if he began to explain this great difference, whether He tried to trace it in new principles and standards, new aims, new methods, or new tests of municipal profit; and he would flounder into worse trouble if he were content to show that the business of the city is larger and more complex to-day than, say, 30 years ago, and tried to argue that Labour has superior and special qualifications to control this larger and more complex business. But Mr Macfarlane introduced into his argument one logical connexion which makes it intelligible. It is not so much from this undefined change in local administration that the “ vital importance ” of electing Labour majorities arises; it arises because there is a Labour Government in power, and it must be “ helped in its work.” Whether Mr Macfarlane favoured this theory when Reform, United, or National Governments were in power or will still favour it when Labour is defeated he should be invited to let future audiences know. It is sufficient to say here that the theory is pure nonsense. The city is fully entitled to set up the administration it wants, without respect to national politics and without thought of helping (or hindering) the Government. Government and council can, and in general will, find a basis for such co-operation as the connexion between national and local functions requires. It need not be based on party affiliation. It is far better, indeed, that it should not be. The co-operation which signifies simply that a majority in Christchurch does what it is told by a majority in Wellington ceases to be co-operation and becomes subservience to the party machine. Mr Macfarlane desires that. He warns the electors that, if they and others do not put into office the Labour majorities which will “ help the Govern- “ ment ” —that is, do as the Government says—then “ the Government and the workers ” will be in a “ very difficult ” position. Beanpole; sheet, hollow turnip, and candle could not be more crudely rigged.