EXTREMISTS’ BIG DEFEAT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 14, 11 October 1927, Page 9

EXTREMISTS’ BIG DEFEAT

IN NEW SOUTH WALES ELECTIONS PUBLIC FEELING AGAINST LANG * GOVERNMENT COUNTRY PARTY MUCH STRONGER The New South Wales election returns are not complete yet, but the defeat of the Lang Government and the victory of the Nationalist-Country party pact cannot be altered.

By Telegraph.—Press Association.—Copyright.

Sydney, October 10.

The completion of last night’s election count gives the Nationalist and Country Parties 47 seats, Labour 37, Independent 2, doubtful 4. An analysis of the voting shows that the Nationalists polled 403,747 votes; the Country Party 92,101, but one Country Party member was returned unopposed; Labour, 458,844. The total votes polled were 1,066,549. ' About. 76 per cent, of those on the roll voted. Twenty-four members of the late Parliament who fought for re-election failed to get back, sixteen Labour and seven Nationalists, and one Independent Labour. A feature of the election was that the Country Party materially strengthened its position and won several seats from Labour in the country.

The “Sydney Morning Herald,” _ in a leader commenting on the election, says: “The whole State voted magnificently, and the strength of the public feeling against the Lang Government will probably prove greater in the total number 'of votes cast than in the lots at present. It is no exaggeration to say that on Sunday morning the State breathed r great sigh of relief.” The “Daily Telegraph” says: “On Saturday the country’s voice rang true. Those who advocated extremist doctrines quickly challenged the Australian sentiment of the community. To such a challenge there could be only one answer, said that was returned without leaving anything . in doubt. The extremist will never dominate the State. Nothing could be more erroneous than to tegard the result as a defeat of Labour. Labour vindicated itself. The working people emphasised their sound good sense in favour of a sane Government on practical humanitarian lines.”

The “Labour Daily,” after a bitter attack on the Pacfs election methods, says: “Cash contributed to an enormous degree. In the somewhat Pyrrhic victorv over principle, a policy of negation was allowed to oust a policy of progress.” The paper complains that, despite an intensive campaign, about 25 per cent of the voters failed to rouse themselves to the point of voting, many of them, belonging to the class most likely to require assistance from Labour’s forward legislation. Mr. Stokes, Minister of Agriculture in the Lang Ministry, appears to have been defeated by the Country Partv candidate at Moharo. This was the only Ministerial seat in doubt.

(Rec. October 10, 7.40 p.m.) Sydney, October 10. The Commissioner of Police states that the election was one of the quietest

and most orderly on record. Although the voting was heavy, there was a complete absence of disorder. There are now only nine electorates where preference votes are yet to be distributed, but the ultimate victory of the Nationalist-Country Party pact cannot be altered. LONDON PRESS COMMENTS THE CHIEF ISSUE WHAT LANG’S VICTORY WOULD HAVE MEANT (Rec. October 10, 7 p.m.) London, October 10. “The Times” states: “The result of the New South Wales election was eagerly awaited outside the borders of the State, because it was largely a trial of strength between the rival ideas of government. The issue was whether legislation should be controlled by some extra-Parliameutary body. Mr. Lang’s . willingness to be a Left Wing Premier, responsible to extra-Parliamentary bodies, was the chief cause of his victory in the Labour Party and defeat at the State elections. The Federal Government will now enjoy the co-opera-tion of the chief State Government.” Referring to the possible suppression of the Sydney City Council, “The Times” says: “The outcome of the present election 'will be a double advantage to Australia if it discredits the noisy short-sightedness and strengthens the hands of those working for the scientific promotion of economic growth.” _ The “Morning Post,” commenting on Mr. Lang’s defeat, says: “The chief issue of the contest was whether the Government was to be controlled by and for the people, or whether it was to be shaped in the interests of one class By Ministers who regard themselves as primarily responsible to an organisation outside the Legislature. If Mr. Lang had been victorious, the situation would Tiave been similar to that Britain would have faced if the general strike Jiad been successful, Parliament had had to capitulate to Cook, and legislation and administration had been directed by Ministers controlled by the minority movement. Though New South Wales is not Australia, Mr. Lang’s, victory would have meant much outside New South Wales, 'hence Mr. Bruce did not hesilate to warn the Australian public what was al stake. Tt is impossible to pretend that the frustration of Mr. Lang and what' he stood for is not a real relief.”