Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, MAY 19, 1930. LABOUR VERSUS REFORM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 145, 19 May 1930, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. MONDAY, MAY 19, 1930. LABOUR VERSUS REFORM.

The Labour leader, Mr H. E. Holland, is apparently deriving a certain amount of satisfaction from the increased vote gained by bis party candidate, Mr Thomas Bloodwortk, at the Parnell byelection, as compared with'the vote cast for Mr Aarnall, the Labour candidate at the 1928 general election. Speaking at Wfiangarei, a day or so after the byelection, Mr Holland claimed that his was the only party that had made definite progress by increasing their vote in the electorate. Apart from the fact that the voting at a by-election generally fails considerably below that at a general election, wlieiT the licensing issue invariably ensures a much larger attendance at the polling booths, the Labour Party, polling the full strength of its vote, only increased Mr Yarnall’s 1928 vote by 404, although it had in Mr Bloodwortk a very worthy public man, who has been associated as a city councillor with the civic life of the community for many years, and who is very generally respected. He was, indeed, probably the best and most popular candidate who could have been chosen to carry the Labour banner in Parnell. But, even so, he failed to come anywhere near to Mr R. E. Way’s vote in 1925, when that gentleman was supported by 3610 out of the 13,925 electors on the roll. Of the 14,073 electors on the roll in 1928, Mr Yarnall was supported by 1661. With 14,019 electors entitled to vote at the by-election, Mr Bloodwortk only obtained the votes of 2065—nothing very much to cause any considerable elation in the party to which he belongs. The outstanding fact of the by-election is not the increased Labour vote as revealed in the contrast with the 1928 election, but the overwhelming defeat of the Government candidate. Mr Holland at Frankton chose to. relegate the Reform Party to oblivion, claiming that, as a result of the 1928 elections, the Reform Party was definitely down and out. “The result of the last election,” Mr Holland said, “was a definite pronouncement from the people that Mr Coates and Reform were finished with.” But more than 40,000 electors expressed tbeir preference for Reform candidates oyer and above the number supporting the United Party candidates, and the Reform vote was 65,000 greater than that secured by Labour. If Auckland is to be regarded as a criterion, there is a definite swing back to Reform. Mr Holland conveniently ignores the fact that the public works votes in the Parnell elec-

tion gave a decided preference to the Reform candidate, Mr Endean, who polled a greater number of votes at the booths at which the public works employees voted than were secured by the Labour candidate. Mr Holland envisages the defeat of the United Government which, he says, must go, and “when it does it will not be a question of Reform going back, but of Labour.” There the hon. gentleman is wrong. The wish is, of course, father to the thought. An appeal to the country at the present moment might not materially affect the position of the three parties, but the indications are that it would strengthen the position of the Reform Party. But no body wants a general election this year and, with the tide flowing in favour of Mr Coates and his followers, and against the United Party which has failed to live up to its promises, the real fight when the elections do come round will be found to be between Reform and Socialist Labour, which the former has always consistently opposed in the best interests of the country. No one expects to see Labour members filing into the Opposition lobby in support of' a Reform Party no-confidence motion, and it is fairly certain the latter is not likely to be drawn into supporting a no-confidence motion moved from the Labour benches, should such be forthcoming when Parliament reassembles next month.

MR HOLLAND AND REFORM

It is the Labour leader’s business, or rather he is making it such, to discredit as far as possible the policy and actions of his political opponents, and it is not surprising therefore to find him speaking of Mr Coates “with his record of class legislation and general failure.” The facts are, however, all the other way. It was urged against Mr Coates and his colleagues by United Party candidates at the general election that their legislation was too Socialistic in character. It was also claimed that only by their (the United Party’s) return could the country be saved from the Socialists. The charge, equally with the claim, was, of course, absurd. The Reform Government may pos • sibly have gone too far with some of its humanitarian legislation, in introducing for instance the family allowances, which savoured too much of the “dole” principle to be acceptable to a good many people. But if it erred at all in that direction it acted primarily in the interests of underpaid workers, and its actions, generally speaking, aimed at bettering tiie condition of the workers. During its nearly thirteen years of office under the late Mr Massey, the Reform Government effected many important reforms and passed much beneficial legislation ; and, in the three and a-half years that he was at the head of the Government, Mr Coates carried on the good work accomplished by his predecessor in office, tiding the country over a period of depression accompanied by falling prices, which were alike beyond his control, and initiating reforms in the public works policy and in the Railways and Post and Telegraph Departments, of which the country is reaping the benefit to-day. The defeat of the Reform Government in 1928 was brought about by a campaign of slander and misrepresent ution, and by the raising of false issues, coupled with extravagant promises, which many of the electors swallowed with avidity, particularly the promise of the United Party to borrow £70,000,000 at 4J per cent, and to lend moneys out at 4j per cent., -without its costing the country an additional penny :ii taxation. In striking contrast to the flamboyant promises made by the United Party, Mr Coates s manifesto promising sound finance and legislation wound up lvith the plain straightforward statement, _“1 cannot promise you something for nothing. 1 <■ country didn’t exactly swallow the United Party s bait, but oO divided its vote that the minority party now occupying the treasury benches came into office and is maintained there by the Socialist minority in Parliament and the electorate.