The Times. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1944. Labour’s Resounding Defeat

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 124, 29 May 1944, Page 4

The Times. MONDAY, MAY 29, 1944. Labour’s Resounding Defeat

Over the past twenty years the Labour political movement had gradually gained substantial representation on local bodies with a proportionate influence on their policies. This year apparently the party leaders felt the time had arrived to attempt to gain complete domination of New Zealand’s local authorities. It would seem that the franchise extension forced through Parliament so suddenly was a part of this policy. Then a Dominion-wide high pressure campaign was embarked upon. In communities large and small Labour tickets were nominated and the most highly organised and powerful political machine New Zealand has ever seen was put into top gear to secure election of those tickets. And this was just eight months after Labour had won—or nearly lost—a Parliamentary general election.

On paper estimates the possibility of political machine domination of local bodies appeared very considerable. The risk looked grave indeed, yet the result lias been a resounding defeat for Labour. A veritable revolt on the part of the public has given the party machine a trouncing that it will not soon forget. In Christ church, for example, Labour has now poorer representation than for twenty years past. Labour has but one Mayor (Wanganui) in all the cities of the Dominiqn and in not one city does it control a Council. In hospital and harbour boards it is poorly represented and in other bodies also.

Perhaps the most notable defeat suffered by the Labour machine was that in the Auckland Mayoralty. A prominent Labour candidate who is a member of Parliament had the advantage of a split vote amongst his opponents. Yet Labour secured only 11,200 votes of 36,200 polled for the Mayoralty—about 30 per cent, only, and the party did not secure one seat on Council, Harbour Board or Hospital Board. Again this same result was seen in Wellington. Here also the discomfiture was experienced of having the party’s Dominion president heavily defeated in the Mayoral contest.

When reasons are sought for the debacle that has resulted, it is found that a number can be provided. Now, as at all times, the party’s nominations are obviously weak in personnel, those selected being “talkers” rather than “doers”-—trade union organisers rather than men noted for accomplishments. Then again, in the past as now, the public have felt that Labour-dominated local bodies would be run extravagantly and that rates would be a growing burden on their own community.

These two factors have, however, been influencing local body elections for years past and so cannot be held to account for the outcome of the 1944 elections. What may be judged as a majoi influence on Saturday was a revolt of public opinion at Labour’s attempt to dominate local affairs throughout the Dominion. A fear arose of octopus control—of political tentacles reaching into every phase of public life from the party headquarters—something all too clearly approaching totalitarianism.

It is dangerous to use local body elections as a guide to political trends as affecting the support of parties in Parliament as the past has shown. Even so, cause is seen to view the local elections results as indicating a further'waning of Labour’s power in this country.