DEMOCRAT PARTY

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 256, 26 July 1935, Page 12

DEMOCRAT PARTY

Tentative Outline of Policy

SOCIALISM OPPOSED

Comment on “VoteSplitting”

Tile following statement lias beetl handed to'the Press by Mr. A. E. DatJ, chief executive officer of tlie Democrat Political Organisation. ••In view of the fact Ilial the chances of the various political parties arc being freely discussed in the Press, and that all sorts of rumours are current regarding the Democrat Party, my executive has authorised me to make an official statement'. Our political opponents have sought to damage us at. every opportunity, and a strong intensive whispering campaign was instituted sonic time ago. However, these efforts have all failed miserably—in fact thev merely served to advertise the party. ' We have made very rapid progress indeed. A meeting of all candidates has been called for the second week iu August. Thus, within the next few weeks, we shall be ready io give the public the full details of the Democrat Parly.

“Apparently the only argument lelt to our friends, the National Socialists, is the old cry of vole-splitting. The whole story of vote-splitting is based on false premises. The fluctuating aggregate votes of parties is a proof of this. To say, after an election, that tlie votes cast for any of the three parties is a definite Reform, or United, or Labour vote, is entirely wrong. “The electors, in recording their votes, are actuated mainly’ by the performance of the Government, its policy and tlie type of candidate for whom they arc asked to vote. Moreover, I consider it an insult to the intelligence of the people of this Dominion to suggest that they vote uniiitelligently, and that parties should combine to defeat their constitutional right to elect a Parliamentary representative, irrespective of party, class or creed.

Minority Representation

"If new candidates are to be prevented from entering the field because of this bogey, it is perfectly' obvious that we roust lie prepared to put up with Hie same politicians and Hie .same sorry legislation year in and year out. It is unthinkable that, we should be asked to stagnate in this manner. If neither the National Socialists nor the Labour Socialists appeal to tlie elector, is he. in effect, to be disfranchised? Ar tlie last general election, when we had n two-party contest', something like 1500 electors in cacti elect ora t' 1 . on an average, did not vote, simply because, in the main, they had no one to vote for.

•'ll: the Governmeni is sincere in it s dislike for minority votes, let It introduce'' some fair system of preferential voting. But if it attempts to retain office by some slippery method of preferential voting. that is designed purely for the purpose of ensuring the election of its candidates, the Democrat: Party will resist it strenuously.

“At the present time we are being besh'ged with rispiests regarding tlie nature of onr policy. Our candidates, at the meeting I have previously referred to. will decide the exact, details of our policy, which will be based on certain broad principles. ('ominittees all over New Zealand are at work on these details at (be present time. “AVe will have a definite scheme for the relief of unemployment, based on development and reproductive works, both State and local body, and private enterprise. Onr aim is Io gel: tlie unemployed back to their own trades or callings at standard rates of pay. Onr scheme dot's not necessitate any taxation increases, inflation of currency, or cuorinous borrowing. It simply means flit.- utilisation of onr present resources in ii eomnion-sense and practical milliner. Assisting Farmers. “Assistance to farmers is an important question, and the schemes we luive in view will ensure that farmers are able to carry on without inflicting undue losses on mortgagees or without, robbing the farmer of his freedom or his years of work represented in his equity. Again, this scheme relies on practical common sense, using the means already at hand, without: any fantastic currency or credit munipulaliou. "\A'o are opposed. to all Socialistic schemes, legislation anil enterprise. AA’e believe ibal prosperity, can collie only witli the rehabilitation of flic private individual and the recognition mid cncoiiragement of his right to work and trade in a free inanuer. AVe believe in the sanctity of contraets, and we believe that, relief from now pressing contracts can be given in a more equitable manner, without undue hardship to either side. “Generally speaking, our policy will be practical and progressive, as opposed to Hie present: impractical experimental legislation.” Danger of Splitting Voles. From a long statement on votesplitting We give the following excerpts: "The Nationalists are talking very largely of the danger of vote-splitting, and Hie ‘.•inti-Lnbonr vote’ theory. According to the National arguments we should avoid all risk of a Labour Government by electing Nationalist ineiiibors for life, and put up with whatever legislation they like to give us. in case we might put another government into power.

“Our present elective system allows tiny man to stand for Parliament, irrespective of class or creed, and to deny him this right is to disfranchise a proportion of the people, if a man is elected on a minority vote it is not his fault, or (lie fault of a multiplicity of parties. It is an indication flint more )>eoplo desire this man to represent (hem than any other candidates, which surely is the first principle of deinocriitie governmeni. The argument that yon must not split volt's is supreinely selfish, and prompted only by selfish motives.

“If ihere are two parties in tlie field (he electors choose one or the other, or refrain from voting. In this connection it. is interesting to note thut; at: the last General Election an average of 1500 electors refrained from voting in each electorate. However, if neither of these two parties meets Avitli the approval of the public and a third party is formed is it not obviously silly to state that this will let ‘such-and-such a ]iarty in’? Tho peojtle have the right to choose, and this right must not bo denied them. "However, lot ns see just, how dangerous this Labour ‘bogey’ is. in 192.8 we had a three-party election, Itclorm, .United and Labour. Now, ac-

cording to the present argument of the Nationalists (his should have ‘let. the Labour Party in.’ But what actually happened? 'The Labour Party lost seats in tliiee-coriiered contests. Here, in itself, is an effective reply to this .split-vote propaganda.

"(n 1931 we bad a two-party tight, Coalition and Labour. According Io Hie National Ist.s’ present argunieiils, this should have resulted in a wholesale defeat of tho Labour Party. Yet the Labour Party actually gained seats in two-party contests. Tlie ‘splitvote’ argument is sound neither in principle, theory nor fact. It is used purely us an argument to catch the unwary, and to attempt the winning back of disgruntled supporters. Moreover, it clearly indicates a lack of constructive argument, ft is (lie last frail hope of a woefully weak ease, anil it will not stand the light of investigation.”