MOONSHINE FROM MIDHIRST.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 May 1925, Page 11

MOONSHINE FROM MIDHIRST.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —While still awaiting an apology from “Citizen,” of Inglewood, and an answer to my questions, I must reply to “Elector,” of Midhirst, by repeating my denial that I am a member of the Labour Party or anything but a supporter of Liberal principles. “Elector,” in spite of my denial, goes even further than “Citizen,” and implies that I am a member of the “extreme Bolshevik element of the Labour Party.” This is, of course, only another blind hit in the dark which has missed as badly as that of “Citizen.” “Elector’s” whole argument, therefore, falls to the ground, such assertions as the statement “these gentlemen are continually harping on the death of the Liberal Party” being especially absurd. All I have said or implied is that our party is now so near Reform in principle that a partial merger (especially in the cities) has much to commend it. What can be said in den nee of the ostrich-like attitude of “Elector,” whose stubborn refusal to face the realities of the situation is stamped across every line of his irrelevant epistle? Why try to bolster up our case by weak arguments based on half the facts? Take, for instance, “Elector's” figures for the Stratford municipal contest. Do they prove anything with regard to whether Liberalism is dead or not? Do they even show that Labour is not gaining ground? Ab-

solutely not. "Elector,” in dealing with the general election results, argued on the basis of percentages of votes, and made much of the fact that Labour polled 0.4 per cent, less of the total European vote in 1922 than in 1919. Why did he not keep to the percentage basis when dealing with the Stratford figures? Obviously because they would not support his case. Here te the position so far as Mr. Lilley’s vote is concerned, stated on a percentage basis. In 1923 the total votes cast in Stratford were 6748. Assuming that every voter voted for nine candidates, approximately 749 electors voted. Mr. Lilley, with 182 votes, was obviously supported by 24.3 per cent, of the voters. For 1925 the total votes were 6407, and the number of voters therefore approximately 712. Mr. Lilley received the support of 183 of these, oi 135.7 per cent. Therefore on a percentage basis Mr. Lilley made an advance of 1.4 per cent., which is 3i times as great as the .4 per cent, which "Elector" makes so much of as if it represented a phenomenal decline in the Labour \Gte at the general election. Now at last election 6890 votes were polled in Stratford electorate. If a Labour —can secure the support of 25.7 of the voters at a municipal contest, how does “Elector” view the prospect of a similar poll in a Parliamentary contest? This would mean a Labour vote of 1770, which jyould certainly play duekf and drakes with the Liberal majority. Reading “Elector’s” partiality for percentage sums. I commend these few figures to his earnest consideration. Does he now see why I aid hundreds of other Liberate are concerned over the progress of Labour? Coming to the Hawera Labour Party’s failure to fight the municipal elections, of course lam not in a position to speak authoritatively on the point. “Elector” may or may not have gool grounds for asserting that “they were afraid to test public opinion,” but this kind of argument seems to me rather a two-«dged sword. One might a.s well argue, for instance that because our Liberal member, Mr. S. G. Smith, did not seek re-election to the New Plymouth Council that he was “afraid to test public opinion.” “Elector” is practising self-deception on a reckless scale when he argues from the municipal election results that Labour is not advancing. He should shake off hie cramping provincial outlook and look wider afield, and note Labour successes ia Cbristdssrah. Andri and aad

(in all of which Labour councillors topped the poll), and in Petone (where four out of five of the Labour ticket were elected with largely increased majorities, which look bad for Mr. Wilford’s chances in December next).

I have not space to deal with “Elector’s” figures concerning the general election, further than to say that again they are based on half the facts and lay themselves open to an even more telling exposure if one had time to dissect them in the light of the facts that “Elector” has kept in the background, the main point being that Labour had many candidates less in the field in 1922 than in 1919. No good can be done to Liberalism by attempts to bolster up our case by such arguments, and if we have to fall back on such dodges to justify our existence the sooner we merge with Reform the better. My advice to “Elector” is that next time he wishes to use election figures for the purposes of controversy he should get someone well up in the political game, Mr. Masters for instance, to check them over before semiing them for publication. While still hoping for a reply to my questions from “Citizen,” might I suggest to “Elector” that he should give us his views on them, if "Citizen” is stumped for answers? 1 would like him especially to try the first one and will he, as a special favour, answer just this one in addition ? Does he consider it was wise or statesmanlike of Mr. Wilford to make his recent admission that at last election our party stood aside in three Auckland seats to give Reform a straight- go against Labour? And how is this admission to be explained away by Liberal candidates in country constituencies when posing as the sworn foes and unflinching antagonists of Reform? In conclusion, if I may be permitted to give just one word of advice to "Elector,” I would like to suggest that after he has answered these questions he should for the future, in the interests of his party, refrain from newspaper defences for which he is obviously so poorly equipped. Let him seek his intellectual diversions in cross-word puzzles or some other such harmless pursuits, but leave political controversy severely alone.—l am, etc., OLD LIBERAL. Hawera, May 7.