TWO OR THREE PARTIES?

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18822, 10 March 1931, Page 12

TWO OR THREE PARTIES?

THE SPECIAL SESSION. POLITICAL ASSOCIATION’S VIEWS. The following statement has been forwarded by the president of the New Zealand Political Association (Mr Edwin Salmond) — A special session of Parliament opening on Wednesday next, has been summoned to “deal with the present economic position and to consider matters arising through the earthquake.” Eighty legislators of the House of Representatives may therefore be expected to assemble in Wellington on that day to do their utmost in the best interests of their fellow men—truly a worthy cause! That the eyes of the whole Dominion will be focussed on their deliberations and outcome of the special session, goes without saying, and as a preface to this statement, it will not be out of place to remind legislators that the electors will not expect, nor will they desire “Addresses to Constituents” per medium of “Hansard.” It is also perhaps unnecessary to mention that when Parliament is “sitting,” the cost to the country is estimated at approximately £SOO every eight hours —sufficient to provide employment, at the maximum rate of pay for one week, of say, 120 men. Analysis of Voting Strength. When Parliament opens, United and j Reform parties will each be represented by 27 members, Labour 20, Independents 5, and Country Party 1. Summarised, the United members will represent 118,762 electors, Reform 116,017, Labour 107,947, Independents 24,426, and Country Party 4385, or a grand total of 371,537 electors. As the votes recorded at the last General Election, after allowance is made for fluctuations at Subsequent by-elections, aggregate 752,363, it will be seen that about 50 per cent, of the electors supported candidates who were unsuccessful.

It has been previously pointed out' that, owing to triangular contests in 1928, seven seats were “presented” to Labour-Socialistic candidates, who polled 6543 less votes than those recorded for the Reform and United candidates. In addition, the Hutt by-election in 1929 may be quoted when the Labour candidate succeeded, polling 5048, against United 4835 and Reform 2570 votes. Brief reference may also De made to the following electorates:— Auckland East: At the General Election, though the two anti-Socialistic candidates polled 6528 against Labour, 4217 votes, the majority in favour of the successful candidate (United) over the Labour candidate was only 37. In Dunedin South where another triangular contest took place. United and Reform candidates polled 6667, against Labour, 4429, the Labour candidate escaping defeat by the small margin of 33 votes. Of the seats “presented” to the Labour-Socialistic candidates, to which reference has been made, two or three may be alluded to as showing the futility of Reform and United each nominating a candidate against Labour, e.g.—

Auckland Suburbs: Labour polled 4357; Reform, 3259; United, 2191. Christchurch South: Labour polled 5171; Reform. 1374; United, 4738. Lyttelton: Labour polled 5022; Reform 3036; United, 2734.

Dunedin North: Labour polled 4875 Reform, 3121; United 2638.

With the foregoing figures as comparisons, is it any wonder that Mr Holland offers no serious objection to a continuance of the three-party system, which, obviously, plays directly into the hands of the LabourSocialistic party.

“Bury The Hatchet.” The time has arrived for “plain speaking. Analysis of the voting strength in a number of electorates clearly demonstrates that if candidates are nominated by United, Reform, and Labour in such constituencies as Wellington East, Wellington North, Hutt, Christchurch South, Dunedin North, and Lyttelton, besides others which were kept from Labour by extremely thin majorities, the prospects of securing a strong, stable Government are anything but bright. Is it, therefore, not opportune that the Reform and United parties should bury the “hatchet of petty political differences,” amalgamate, and thus prove that the “country” is receiving “first” consideration.

Opportunity offers during the next few days enabling supporters of both parties to discuss the matter from every angle. And to further illustrate the trend of public opinion in support of fusion, it is significant that three of the candidates already announced for Wellington seats have emphatically declared in its favour, one of whom (Mr Troup) affirming “that he failed to see how a stable Government could be secured while there were three parties in the House.” Once more it may be pertinently asked, by what? and by whom? are the United and Reform Parties kept asunder?