The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1929. TRIUMPH AND DEFEAT

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 689, 14 June 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET, AUCKLAND FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1929. TRIUMPH AND DEFEAT

IN the hour of greatest triumph men return home like migratory birds to the copse of their natal nesting. It is there only may be found the true joy of achievement. So Mr. Ramsay MacDonald has returned to the simple village of his birth and youthful upbringing. And for all of his own folks and old friends Lossiemouth has become the centre of a vast Empire. The first Commoner in the kingdom, the leading statesman of the British nation at the moment, received a Scottish welcome that was a tumult of delight and “unco” pride, forbye. A cauld race, it is said of the Scots; aye! maybe, but when their emotions spring from a victory in politics, no less appetising and strong than porridge and peat-reeked whisky, or over whom they call “they English,” the clan becomes warm enough and very expressive. The nature of the Labour Prime Minister’s reception was characteristic, and need not be elaborated. It were better Per naps to forget the hoarse clamour of sirens on the uncouth drifters in a wee bit harbour and hearken only to the pipes schreiching above the clean wind that ripples the Lossie and sings over the lovely countryside of Elginshire, where, among the shadows of a castle and the ruins of a bishop’s palace, “the whaups are crying.” All this, of course, is the sort of sentiment and homely joy that occasionally makes politics worth while, if for nothing more than to demonstrate that the people still appreciate a great fighter and admire a conqueror. The police burgh of Lossiemouth itself is not much more than a clachan, not yet as large as Otahuhu, but larger, much bigger, indeed, in importance just now than Auckland or even London. And it is well that the triumphant Labour Leader should enjoy tumultuous greetings from his own place and people. He will need all the heartening encouragement they and many others elsewhere can give. When he flies away by airplane from his native shore and the golf-links that taught him the best way to wield a mashie, he will be flying back to a crowded centre of political trouble. For his party triumph was not complete. He still has to depend on an old enemy for enough support to keep Labour in administrative poyer. Time may prove that Mr. MacDonald's name will “go down to posterity as a great Prime Minister who made peace possible among the nations of the earth” (to quote the fervent hope of Lossiemouth’s proud Provost), but there may be many bruises and much sad disillusionment before his name so goes down to succeeding generations. It is clear, however, that the country is ready and willing to give him a better chance than he has ever had to do his best and make a great name, and if he can hold the plungers of Socialism in check, there appears to be no outstanding reason against the accomplishment of moderate success. There is at least a striking contrast between the pleasure of victory and the pain of defeat. While Mr. MacDonald was flushing with joy at the skirling of bagpipes, and being hauled in procession by women-power to his home on a hillock, Mr. Winston Churchill was bleating in “John Bull” about the defeat of the Conservatives, and probably earning big money for his journalistic bleat. “Why We Lost” was the title of his story, and he made, the most of a poor tale. He asked himself an interesting question: “Was the Conservatives’ slogan ‘Safety First’ well chosen?” but did not answer it, possibly for the simple reason that, it was one of the political questions which carry their own replies without expression. In any case the people answered it. The slogan was not well chosen. If the nation throughout its history had always played for safety first, like Mr. Baldwin’s amiable and mediocre team, its flag never would have flown over the world’s greatest Empire. Political parties that pin their faith to slogans rarely ever succeed. Three causes for the Conservatives’ defeat have been given by “John Bull’s” distinguished contributor. One only, the first, explains everything. This was “the natural desire of the people for a change after four and a-half years of steady but unexcitingadministration.” It was steady, but unexciting. Need more be said? As for the cold-hlooded use Mr. Lloyd G-eorge is alleged to have made in squandering the Liberal fund “to sabotage as many of the Conservative seats as possible irrespective of the immediate interests of Liberalism,” what else could anyone expect? Meanwhile, the exultation of Lossiemouth demonstrates the way of the world in polities.

THE MUNICIPAL LOTTERY

submitting- to the City Council another proposal to divide the city electoral territory into wards, Councillor Ellen Melville is giving the council an opportunity to abolish a system which presents all the elements of a lottery. Under existing conditions the mass of voters may be asked to select their choices from an indefinite number of candidates, representing interests located anywhere between Avondale and Tamaki. The attendant evil was seen in its worst form at the last polls, when 67 candidates. sought the approval of the electors. Their names occupied a strip of paper, two feet long, which voters thumbed in conscientious perplexity as they made their selections at the booths. It was impossible in the circumstances for the merits of different candidates to be soundly weighed. All who had the experience of voting know that their choices were often random shots,, and that the process was one of elimination rather than selection. There was an inevitable high percentage of informal votes. As Councillor Melville proposes to amend the system, the wide territory over which the City Council reigns will be divided into wards. This is not her first attempt to introduce a similar reform. In 1927, when thez-e were 61 candidates on the ballotpaper and it was fondly thought the limit had been reached, Miss Melville managed to have her proposal referred to a committee which, after months of delay, decided that it bad nothing to recommend. With the same end in view, but a different method of reaching it, Councillor J. W. Ivealy, one of the progressive younger councillors who was one of the victims of the present haphazard system, pi-oposed before the old council went ozzt of office that nine councilloi-s be elected from wards, and the other twelve from the whole area. Under this scheme a voter would receive both a local and a general ballot-paper. This thoughtful proposal, which additionally embodied a plan to retain a cez-tain number of councillors in office over a four-year instead of a two-year tei-m. proved too complicated for the intelligence of the retiring cozzncil. While it may be questionable whether a plan to maintain continuity of policy is worth the risk in these days of mediocrity, it is certainly true that the present farce has to be ended. The innovation by which it is to be supplanted may take one of several different forms, and it may be impossible to eliminate the unwelcome factor of parochialism. Under the ward system the council may become a little parliament, with the councillors working for constituencies rather than for the community as a whole. Even if the councillors fear a development of that sort, they cannot any longer be blind to the stupidity of the present method.