The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING, Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1923. THE HOUSE’S VOTE.

Southland Times, Issue 19770, 19 February 1923, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING, Luceo Non Uro. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1923. THE HOUSE’S VOTE.

After the Government had defeated the no-confidence motion presented by Mr Wilford, securing the support of three Independent Liberals whose attitude was well known, Mr McCombs infused some life into what otherwise must have been a very dull business. The absence of enthusiasm in the Chamber was the most convincing proof possible of the fact that the members knew what the result was going to be and what members intended to vote with the Government. In 1911, it will be remembered, things were different. On that occasion there were several members about whose voting there were doubts. Mr Atmore of Nelson was regarded as a sure vote against Sir Joseph Ward and it was known that Mr Massey counted the Nelson member as a vote against the Government. It was not until the actual division was taken that it became clear that notwithstanding his election speeches Mr Atmore intended to keep the Liberal Party in office. On that occasion there was genuine excitement because the result was in doubt and the test of strength was necessary. This year the result was known beforehand and in consequence the close of the debate was tame. Then however, the Labour member for Lyttelton who prides himself on his grip of constitutional law, took the stage and in a speech began to talk to the electors through the Chamber. None of the members of the House would be very much concerned by Mr McCombs’ hollow warnings, but he was not thinking of them, his eye was on the electors who are often impressed by stage thunder of this kind. Mr McCombs seems to have forgotten that the three men who voted for Mr Massey were Independents who object to allowing the Labour Party to secure office or to dominate a government by means of their votes. The constituents knew that. Then it is probable that two of the three at least object to a Government led by Mr Wilford and surely in that case they were entitled to decline to be used to bring about changes to which they are opposed. Mr McCombs’ outbreak may have sounded petulant. It was not; it was an effort to make some political capital out of a situation which looked to possess advantage to no one except the Government. If Mr McCombs’ declaration that parliamentary representation is on its trial is taken seriously and examined it means either a very big soap-bubble or a distinct threat that the whole of our present system is to be overturned for something suited to the tastes of Mr McCombs and his colleagues. Probably when the next election comes round this threat will be hotly denied. The result of the division is to leave Mr Massey in power, but not with the backing that is necessary for the continuation of a vigorous ministry. There must be more unity behind the Government and therefore between now and the next session there will probably be some rearrangement which will result in the removal of the third party. Mr Massey has had a long spell of office and his parliamentary career has been long enough to blunt the edge of most men’s enthusiasm, but he has shown that he still has plenty of vigour and can lead his party ably. He must, however, strengthen his backing and recognise that the first essential for the proper government of this country under the party system is the creation of a strong cohesive following, representing a majority of the House, behind the Ministry. In the face of that need no personal wishes can long stand.