Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1925. WHY THEY LOST.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLV, Issue 288, 9 November 1925, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1925. WHY THEY LOST.

Both tlie pseudo Nationalists, whose claim to the title has surely been shattered by the events of the past week, and more particularly by the decisive victory of the Reform Party at the polls, and the Labourites, have been busily explaining 1 , or rather attempting to explain, away their defeat. On the part of the latter there is an attempt to prove the impossible —that is that there has been a greater swing over to Labour than to the Government Party and that, on the basis of the votes cast, they are really entitled to more seats than they actually gained. But, in at least two of the Wellington City electorates (Central and North) there was a very considerable falling off in the votes recorded for the Labour candidates, with a corresponding increase in the Reform vote. John Luke, for instance, secured an additional vote of 551, while Hr 11. E. Combs, his Labour opponent, experienced a shortage of 745 on his 1922 total; the Independent Liberal or Nationalist candidate, Mr McGrath, falling short of the Liberal vote of 1922 by 122. In Auckland, again, Messrs Savage and Lee were returned with considerably reduced majorities, the former’s 1922 majority of 1349 being reduced to 52G, and the latter’s from 715 to 329. A similar slump in the Labour vote was apparent in other electorates, but, contesting as they did some 57 seats, the total vote cast for Labour went up to 159,062 —little more than half the total polled by the Reform candidates in tlie European electorates. On tlie 1922 figures so far as the results are known, the Labour vote only shows an increase of 7323, whereas the Reform vote increased by 25,489 and tlie Liberal vote declined by 44,952. The totals are still incomplete, so that it is not possible to make an effective comparison between the voting strength of the three main parties; but it is rather a curious commentary upon the introduction of compulsory registration that there is an actual falling off in tlie total votes cast this year, as compared with tlie num.ber recorded in 1922. The Labour executive has endeavoured to minimise dosses by suggesting that “Labour was at a disadvantage in the country districts, where the electorates are widely scattered, and where the Labour candidates had less opportunity of getting into personal contact with the electors than ~ was the ‘case iU the cities, where gener-

ally speaking they polled well.” That seems rather a damaging admission, because of the intensive campaign conducted by Labour members throughout the rural constituencies during the earlier months of the year, in connection with which the most encouraging reports were forwarded to Wellington, with confident anticipations that the party had captured the ear of the small working farmer and also of the Maoris. That they were handicapped by their “usehold” land policy is beyond question. . The small freeholder and the man who was endeavouring to acquire the fee simple of his' land under the optional form of tenure with the right of purchase, naturally took alarm at a proposal which indicated a more or less confiscatory policy, which would end in their becoming the serfs of the State. Apart from that, however, the Labour Party has itself to blame for its persistent and malignant campaign of misrepresentation which, although thoroughly exposed through the public press and on the platform by Government supporters, was persisted in and repeated even on the eve of the election. Political dishonesty may not be accounted a sin by some people, but it never pays in the long run, and that is one of the lessons which the Labour Party will have to take seriously to heart if it desires to achieve greater successes than it has already attained. We have no doubt its leader will regard, as some slight compensation for their losses, the debacle in the Nationalist camp, which has placed Lahour in the position of the official Opposition, with Mr Holland as its leader.

OTHER CAUSES AT WORK

Other causes operated to bring about the Labour defeat, notably the shipping strike, concerning which it became known that the Alliance of Labour had piped the tune to which the British seamen had danced, with the consequent hold-up of the overseas trade of the Dominion. . There was, too, the distrust felt by a very large section of the public of the Communistic tendency of the Labour Socialists. Although the Labour Party had expressly disclaimed any connection or sympathy with the Communists, the past utterances of certain of its leaders had been of such a character as to indicate that the contrary was the case, and we believe we are right in saying that the marked slump of the Labour vote, particularly in the Palmerston election, was due in-a very large measure to the disgust felt by the saner section of Labour at the trend of the Labour Socialist policy. How else are we to account for the drop of over a thousand in the Palmerston Labour vote. The Liberal Labour, or Nationalist Party, now constituting the smallest section of the House of Representatives, met with the fate which has befallen the more distinguished Liberal Party in the Mother Country and in Australia. Its members made' their initial mistake in dropping the time-honoured name associated with such 1 distinguished Liberal leaders as Sir George Grey, John Ballance, and Richard John Seddon. By adopting the name of Nationalist they probably hoped to obtain the advantage over their Reform friends with whom they had been negotiating. But the change of name evidently did not impress the public, nor was it regarded as in any seuse entitling them to call themselves the Nationalist Party. Any pretensions they may have had in that direction were rudely dissipated as the result of the appeal to the country. The “Standard” has already expressed its opinion that the demand for fusion was a press-in-spired appeal and, during the negotiations between the representatives of the Liberal-Labour and Reform parties in the earlier part of last session, it became apparent that, so far as the Lib-eral-Labour delegates were concerned, the desire was more lor a coalition than an actual fusion oi parties. The question may be said to have been definitely settled for the next three years, in view of the almost total eclipse of the pseudo Nationalists, who now compose the minority group in the House of Representatives. If they are wise men they will seek to reconcile their differences with the Reform Party, which are anything but real, and unite with the Government in legislating tor the welfare of the country and upholding that sound government which has been the distinguishing feature of New Zealand politics since the inception of responsible government in this Dominion.