THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1929. THE CITY ELECTIONS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20241, 29 April 1929, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS MONDAY, APRIL 29, 1929. THE CITY ELECTIONS.

In two days' time the citizens of Auckland must choose a Mayor and a City Council for another term. One of the chief difficulties they will meet in selecting members for the new council is one which should not exist. Another election has come with a huge, unwieldy ballot paper, a list of 67 candidates for 21 vacancies, and all tho confusion arising from these circumstances. It is not a testimonial to the interest the city takes in its own government that this should have been permitted. As long ago as last election, and earlier, the need for reform in the method of election was manifest, yet the demand for it has not been pronounced enough to enforce action. The electorate is culpable for its apathy, but that does riot exonerate Iho outgoing Maj or and council. They were urged to change the system. A minority of members pressed for amendment, but the council as a whole, after considering a proposal to try the ward system, rejected it for reasons that were far from convincing, and offered nothing as a substitute. Consequently the citizen must struggle as best, he can with the ballot paper to be handed to him on Wednesday.. It is true a number of tickets have been urged upon his notice, and he may be helped toward making his choice by one or more of them. This is far from satisfactory. It is nothing short of farcical that tickets should be offered by this group or that group, with interests that may overlap or be in conflict, and the voter be expected to make an independent choice amid so much confusion and special pleading. The lesson of the need for something better was not learned last time, but it should be this year. The continuance of these grotesque and impossible conditions is not an excuse for apathy, it is a sign of apathy. The sooner they are cured, the better for local government in Auckland.

The first choice, and in the mere mechanics of voting, the easiest choice to be made is that of a Mayor. There are four candidates, but if voting for one out of the offering is a simple operation, it is not so simple to decide for whom the vote most be cast. The first eliminations are not especially difficult. Mr. Murray offers himself as one who has been very busy in municipal affairs during the recent past, who claims to have done the citizens great service by his activities. That he has been busy is undeniable, but the positive results of his efforts are not very conspicuous, and the methods he has adopted in some instances do not commend his claims to the office of Mayor. He would have been a more acceptable candidate if he had left undone many of the things he has done. Judged on his career as a councillor he is not a possible Mayor of Auckland. Mr. Bloodworth has a good record in public life, but he has chosen to associate himself, in his attack on the Mayoralty, with an organised attempt to introduce not only party, but party domination, into local politics. There is no justification for this, and Mr. Bloodworth must suffer the disqualifying handicap he has chosen to assume. There remain the retiring Mayor, Mr. Baildon, and Mr. Vaile. Of Mr. Baildon's two terms it must be said they have been impeccable in conduct, but absolutely without inspiration or drive in policy. Unfortunately, Mr. Vaile's programme, as expounded in his campaign, contains no promise of the vitalising process local affairs need, which, naturally, would come best from the occupant of the mayoral chair. Frankly, it has been a disappointment. Further, he has had little or no experience in local politics, a circumstance which could not but be a serious handicap in what is growing to be a most exacting office. Still, logically, the choice for the next Mayor lies between these two.

To attempt to review the choice for a City Council in detail is, for reasons already indicated, a hopeless task There arc tickets in plenty, but the reasons why a candidate is selected for one, rejected from another, are far from obvious in many instances. In only one is the reason for inclusion plain, and that is the Labour ticket. To it applies what was said about Mr. Bloodworth's candidature. Men appearing on it have sat on the council and done good work, but by being associated with this effort to secure party control in local affairs they have diminished their claims to consideration ou personal grounds. Many of the outgoing council arc offering their services again. They bear, in the minds of those who may have been displeased with things done in the past term, responsibility for these acts of the council. It is not necessarily fair cither to praise or to blame the individual member for what the council has done in its corporate capacity. Those offering for election again have a right to ask that they be judged on their personal records, and on tho attitude they have taken toward contentious questions. There arc so many new aspirantn to seats at the table, that to choose among them is no easy task. There must be new blood in the council, since some who have retired arc not out for election again. In any event, there should be new blood. Youth should not be regarded as a handicap, training and experi-

ence in business are two of the most valuable qualifications a candidate can have. Experience of local affairs on any other type of body should not be overlooked. The system by which men used to start on a school committee and gradually extend tho nature and the scope of their public ambitions was a good one. It is impossible to offer more than very general suggestions for reducing 67 candidates to the 21 for whom votes must be given. The final word should be an admonition to vote, and to determine that by next time the task must have been made more simplo and reasonable.