Correspondence

Inangahua Times, 22 December 1931, Page 1

Correspondence

(We are not to be identified with •pinions expressed by correspondents.) j (To the Editor) Slß—Only a person biassed by prejudice could have written tbe letter which appeared in your issue of 10th December over the nom-de-

plume ‘ Anti Bluff.’ He denies tbe Labour Party’s right to claim the J result of the recent general election as a gain for them, and contends that I the figures show “ just tbe opposite.” It seems extraordinary to me, in view of the facts, that anyone in full possession of his faculties Could make a statement like that, if ‘ Anti i Bluff ’ believes that tbe result of the I j election left no room for doubt as to j j the progress made by the Labour I Party, but it is a true old saying I ‘ there are none so blind as they who j will not see.’ The very idea of the Labour Party ! gaining ground is unbearable to i ‘ Anti Bluff,’ and so he endeavours to belittle their progress. He makes out the advance is more apparent than real ; that things are not what they seem ; but " just the opposite,” and so the poor old chap beguiles himself into believing that the position is not as everyone else thinks it is but “ just tbe opposite,” that the Labour Party although it appears to have made progress has really gone back. I think it is a pity he should deceive himself like this and so I will endeavour to dispel his delusion.

‘ Anti Bluff ’ says that Labour’s success in winning five new seats — Auckland Hast, Roskill, Gisborne, Wellington North and Timaru —was due entirely to splitting of votes. Now I contend if there had not been any splitting of votes it is decidedly open to question as to whether the result would have been any different to what it was in any of the electorates named, for in each case tbe Labourite bad a substantial majority. To take tbe first electorate mentioned by ‘ Anti Bluff,’ Auckland East. The figures are t F W Schramm (L) ... 3,695 H P Burton (I R) ... 2,136 Dr W Horton (U) ... 1,611 Miss E Melville (W) ... 939 J A Arihur (I) ... ... 434 ‘ Anti Bluff ’ adds together all the figures of the unsuccessful candidates and sets them against the figures of the successful candidate. In this way he shows a majority against the Labourite. But on what grounds he assumes that “ all ” the votes cast for the unsuccessful candidates are antilabour he does not trouble to mention. He even counts the votes cast for I Miss Melville, the women’s candidate, and those polled bv Mr Arthur, the Independent, as against Labour. The total number of votes polled in Auckland East was 8,799. If you deduct the votes cast for Mr Schramm (3,695) and H P Burton (2,136) it leaves (2,968) polled by the rest of the candidates. To secure an absolute majority (4,400), in addition to the votes he received (3,695), Mr Schramm would need to secure 705, whereas his opponent Mr Burton I would have to secure an additional 2,264. If there bad been no votesplitting I think the odds would have ' been rather in favour of Mr Schramm. I 1 Anti Bluff ’ has used the same fallacious reasoning regarding tbe other electorates named and his | conclusions in each case are subject to tbe same criticism. I note he adopts the name ‘ Anti Bluff ’ but why the Anti. But, Sir, the best way to form a correct judgment as to whether the Labour Party made any progress or cot at tbe recent election is to take the aggregate vote throughout tbe country and compare it with the last election. The figures are as follows :

The figures speak for themselves. They show that the Labour Party gained 28,195 votes compared with 1928, whereas the Coalition Parties went back to the extent of 139,041 ; and allowance has to be made for the fact that Labour contested 35 fewer seats than the Coalition. Iu the cities Labour swept the polls, showing ao absolute majority over the Coalition in the four centres: —

Totals 133,641 105.789 21,557 Even in the country districts, which are the Coalition strongholds (the farmer beiDg the world over notoriously conservative) the Labour vote showed considerable improvement and indicates that at last the farmer is charging over to the Labour Party. Altogether, the result of the election was a pronounced gain to | the Labour Tarty and a brilliant

augury of what will happen at the next election. In spite of tbe fact that they were opposed by a combination of other parties, such as has never before gone to the country, the Labour Party emerged from the struggle with the honours all in their favour, capturing five new seats, narrowly missing several others, and showing a big addition to their aggregate votes. But, Sir, I cannot credit that j ‘ Anti Bluff’ really believes what he has asserted. That would be a! reflection on his intelligence. I am | sure be knows quite well the meaning ot the result of tbe election. He can see ‘ the writing on the wall.’ He is afraid that Mr Holland’s prediction of the Labour Party’s advent to the Treasury benches within three years may come true, and the prospect fills him with an unreasoning dread. But as he becomes familiar with the idea, and gets to understand tbe aims and objects of the Labour Party, he will lose his fear, for he will then realise !tbat the Labour Party is tbe people’s party, the party that stands for the greatest good to the greatest number. I am etc, E, I. PAINE. Rotokohu, 12/12/31

1931 1928 Coalition Parties 355,885 494,926 Labour 231,816 203,621 Independent 46,566 24,844 Country 15,982 11,990

L C I Auckland 46,909 40,356 8,532 Wellington 37,382 31,163 2,903 Christchurch 29,053 21,917 3,275 Dunedin 20,297 12,353 6,841