The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1929 FUTILE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 639, 16 April 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 1929 FUTILE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

ONE of tlie many solid merits of citizenship and character which have maintained Mr. T. Bloodworth appreciably in local government service for the past ten years or so is truthfulness. He always speaks the truth as he sees it and never embellishes it either for a general effect or for personal advantage. “Tom,” as everybody knows him, is an honest man.

Thus this estimable trait gives weight to his plain declaration last evening in an address as the Labour candidate for the Mayoralty of Auckland that “it is no exaggeration to say that the City Council now going out of office has proved itself to be the most incapable, futile and disastrous council which has had charge of the city’s affairs for many years.” Such is the truth as Mr. Bloodworth has seen it from within the council, and such the truth is as seen by others from without. Indeed, if it were not well known that Labour’s municipal champion does not need to borrow opinion from anyone, it might have been said that, in this instance, he had borrowed violent criticism from a most conservative source. Two years ago a contemporary said the same thing in a different way, hut with more bitterness and more contemptuous disgust. So: “The optimistic enthusiasm which formerly characterised the atmosphere of the Town Halllias been stifled; zeal and activity have been subdued, and lethargy and hesitation placed in control. ... It may now he said that too much of the city’s business is not done at all; that the council is so lacking in cohesion, is so devoid of policy and is so weakly led that it cannot make up its' mind upon any subject. . . . To patriotic citizens, the prospect of a continuance of this paralysis must be deplorable.” That was the considered opinion of an observer with half a century’s experience of municipal government. One does not know whether the same condemnation will be similarly voiced on this occasion, but the necessity for it has not yet disappeared. The council is as lethargic and palsied as ever, and really rather worse, since in the interval it was found necessary to take out of its feeble hands the control of municipal transport. The vital question now calling for serious and active consideration by the community is the opportunity gWen the municipal electors to make a drastic change for the be + te government of the city and for the essential quickening of progressive enterprise. Unfortunately, the majority of the people who suffer through bad local government do not take seriously their duties and responsibilities as citizens. They growl vigorously enough, hut apparently they have not sufficient' vigour to take them to the poll and there eliminate the administrators who have not succeeded in keeping Auckland in the forefront of profitable government and civic progress. The old brigade always marches back to an inactive garrison. There is more interest than usual in the biennial electoral attack upon that fortified garrison. A new force, or rather an old force with greater strength, is marching to battle. Labour not only seeks the highest command in the municipal camp, but aims at securing many places in the ranks. This force inevitably is political in policy and purpose.

In ordinary circumstances there is no valid reason against Labour representation in local government. Indeed, the law on the subject is the same for Labour as it is for anybody or anythingelse, but as a rule, nobody really wants to see local government become as the field of general government—a Tom Tiddler’s ground for party politicians. It is, therefore, probable that this unwritten law for keeping municipal administration free of political antics, and party policy again will he responsible for keeping many estimable Labour candidates out of civic office. If there be any blame going for such a result organised political Labour must take it as its own penalty. As Mr. Bloodworth has said, it is not necessary for him to apologise for his political opinions, but he might he called upon to apologise for the political opinions of his party. He has succeeded in local government because of his consistent individualism, and liis merits of honesty and conscientious service. The electors may not invest him with the highest power, but they will at least agree with him that a change in municipal leadership and representation is the supreme need of Auckland at the moment.