THE REFORM DEFEAT

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 121, 27 November 1928, Page 10

THE REFORM DEFEAT

SOME SIDELIGHTS GAINS AND LOSSES , THE FJ(UJ.I?KS ANALYSED An analytical study of the voting at tho recent General Election throws interesting light on the defeat, of tho Kofonn Party, and (lie substantia! gain of the United Party. On tho Opposition side of the .House the majorities of many silting members wero largely increased, while the Reform cause suffered a severe decline in numerous instances. Reform polled more than 42,000 votes in excess of any other party, but 41,000 votes less than at the 1025 election! The total votes polled at the election, based on the official count figures, are resolved as follows:—

The total votes against the Government, excluding those cast for Independents and Country Party, wero therefore 425,770. PARTY VOTE STRENGTHS. The proportionate strength of the parties in tho House, judged by the votes recorded for returned candidates, is as follows:— Keform 107,803 t Ind. Reform 8,420 United 119,052 L.boar 103.314 independent 25,422 - Included in the Independent total are 18,400 votes cast for four candidates who are said to have given definite pledges of support to the United Party, so that the United Party figure is increased to 1.8,302. According to these figures, the Government members are supported by 11G,232 voters, while tho combined opposition forces have a backing of 241,606 votes, or considerably'more than twice the number of people who have voted Beform. FLUCTUATING FEATURES. The following table enables a comparison to be made between the party fortunes in the total voting at the last three General Elections: —

SEATS CONTESTED; SEATS WON. Another interesting comparison, which must be borne iv mind in considering the above figures, may be made from a study of tho number of seals won by each party at' the last three General Elections, and the number of seats contested. The comparison is as follows: —

INDIVIDUAL HONOURS. Several members of the Labour Party have achieved the distinction of being returned with tho greatest majorities of the election. Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) has a majority of 3845, and his Manukau .colleague, Mr. \V. J. Jordan, 3059. The Leader of the party, Mr. H. E. Holland, comes third with 3617, and Mr. P. Eraser (Wellington Central) occupies fourth place in the list with §458. The United Party Leader (Sir Joseph Ward) is nextdn order with 3278 majority, and then come two other members of the Labour Party, Messrs. W. Parry (Auckland Central) and B. M.Keen "(Wellington South), with 3024 and 2953 respectively. The Leader of tho other principal party, Mr. Coates, has the next place with a 2475 majority. Tho smallest majorities, of course, are in Bay of Islands and Southern Maori, where ties occurred and a casting vote was given. The highest number of votes recorded in favour of any one candidate was 7353, in the case of Mr. Eraser (Wellington Central), Sir Joseph Ward being a close second with 7309, Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) third with 7283, and Mr. W. J. Jordan (Manukau) fourth with 6567. The only other candidates to pass, the six thousand mark wore Mr. H. T. Armstrong, Christehurch East (6564), Mr. Sullivan (6376), and Sir Charles Statham, Dunedin Central, 6022. There is a third interesting feature about Mr. Sullivan's vote: he has only one less supporter than he had at the 1925 election. His vote is 'now 6376 instead of 6377. In Patea, Mr. 11. G. Dickie appears to have gained ten more friends; he has improved his position from 4501 to 4511 votes. REDUCED MAJORITIES. The majorities gained by some of the most safely seated members at the 1925 General Election have been substantially reduced at the recent poll, in some cases the" drop being not merely hundreds but thousands. The hardest hit candidate in that respect was tiie Chief Government Whip, Mr. J. S. Dickson, who iv 1925, in a straight-out contest in Parnell, polled 8497, the record of that election. This time lie had two opponents, and his vote dropped to 4793 —a landslide of no less than 3704 votes —with the result that he was unseated. The loss of the Kangitikei seat by Beform was due to Mr. W. S. Glenn losing 1219 cotes in a' similar contest to that of 1925, when he romped back to Parliament with a majority of 1963. This timo he suffered defeat by 1234 votes. Several other Kcformers lost very heavily, but not sufficiently to bo deprived" of their, seats. The Hon. W. Oownic Stewart and the Hon. J. A. Young had (heir support reduced by 2305 and 2301 votes respectively, Mr. Stewart, in a three-cornered, contest, ..s compared with a direct fight in 1925, and Mr. Young in another triangular poll. A still larger loss was that of Mr. A. Harris (Waitemata), who in a triangular field polled 4683 votes as compared with 7101 at the last General Election—a drop of 241S votes. The member for Tauranga fared almost as badly, losing 2102 votes, nearly as many as he had majority three years ago. The Prime Minister himself lost 1117 votes to his Labour opponent. In Wel- ■ lingtoii East, Mr. Forsyth, who held his seat in tho last Parliament with 6191 votes (gained in a straight-out contest) now finds himself defeated in a triangular fight, having been deprived of IG3O votes; his Independent Beform opponent secured 2645. INDIVIDUAL GAINS. The largest increase in the majority of a sitting member was. in. the case of I

Govt. AntiGovt. itt'.nnn _...!.:;_■_ Iiul. Reform 1 .,12S - 207,4..7 United 216.739 Iiul. United ... 1.362 Llli.-Ldl) '1,330 Jiid.-Llb 2,635 225,066 Labour 198,38:1 ImJ. Labour ... 2,327 200,710 Country Parly . 12,009 \iidciicndunt ... '31,849 Informal .... 7,III',3 744.754

1922. 1925. 1928. Reform 266,123 30S.413 267,457 Labour 145,148 181,007 19S.3S3 Nationalist (United) 139,287 133,453 225,060 Others 22,512 31,922 46,185 623,070 654,855 737,091 Worked out in percentages of the total votes cast on each occasion (excluding informal votes), the effect is as follows: — 1922. 1925. 192S. Percent. Percent. Percent. Reform 42.71 47.09 36.29 Labour 23.30 27.65 20.91 Nat. (United) 30.38 20.38 30.53 Others 3.61 4.81 6.27

1922. 1925. 192S. Reform — Contested 73 Won , 39 Labour — Contested 43 Won 17 N'ationalist (United) — ' Contested -46 Won 19 OS 56 13 46 11 71 29 ' 19 31