The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1921. SAME OLD ARGUMENTS.

Southland Times, Issue 19069, 2 March 1921, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1921. SAME OLD ARGUMENTS.

The Christchurch Press is again making itself look foolish over proportional representation. Its latest declaration on this subject is that “whatever may be said for the use of the ‘Proportional Representation’ system in the election of the General As-

sembly there is nothing to be said for it as the basis of municipal elections.” The reasons advanced for the unsuitability of proportional representation in municipal politics are as peculiar as anything the Press has’ ever put forward in its opposition to this electoral reform. We are told that the business of a City Council is “to administer the affairs of the city” (a discovery which reflects great credit on the industry of the Christchurch journal), and it follows, therefore, that the Council is “fax more like a Board of Directors than the General Assembly can possibly be.” To understand the force of this distinction it is necessary io pursue the relentless logic of the Press further. We find the explanation of the Council’s distinctive features in the following passage:—

The concerns of the Council are very strictly limited, and the administration of the city involves hardly any of the issues that are involved in general politics. All that is required is a Council composed of men who can keep the city comfortable, progressive, and solvent.

This is lucid and quite correct; but is it at all new or does it affect the basis of the election ? No one is likely to dispute the point that the municipal governors do not have to deal with issues of national importance, nor to deny the merit of the three tests as to the suitability of men. for seats on the Council, though these three things are to be expected equally of the members of parliament in relation to national affairs. The Press, however, warns us that men to fill these three requirements are wanted now mor? urgently than in the past and under proportional

represntation “cranks” might be elected to the council. These arguments have been trotted about often for the undoing of the advocates of the reform on the national field, but they are now doing service in the campaign in municipal affairs, which are so radically distinct from those of general politics! The chief danger is the Labour Party. These terrible fellows make their candidates pass

something like an examination by the Labour Representation Committee upon their attitude towards militarism, Imperialism, and capitalism. Militarism, Imperialism and capitalism have no more to do with municipal government than with the science of astronomy. Yet under proportional representation the city may obtain as councillors men whose only quali- , fication for municipal office is a fixed conviction that militarists, Imperialists, and capitalists must be abolished There is no reason, of course, why other particularists than the classes we have named—anti-militarists and so on—should not seek to crowd into the council. In Christchurch municipal politics are a matter of party interests. The Citizens Association, an unofficial body, selects its candidates and runs a “ticket,” the members of which may have peculiar views on militarism, Imperialism, and Labour, but the Press does not object to them as dangerous cranks. We need hardly say that we have no sympathy with the extremist section of the Labour Party, but it is abundantly clear to Christchurch citizens that the record of the Labourites in municipal politics has been excellent, and that the regrettable party strife which the Press regrets existed long before P.R. came into operation there. As a matter of fact under the guise of stating a new ground for objection to proportional representation the Press has used once more the well-worn plea that under it the candidates receiving the support of the Christchurch Press might not win so many seats. We have heard these arguments from opponents of P.R., who sing the praises of the discredited “first past the post” system because it gives them control out of all proportion to the support they can claim in the electorate.