THE Thames Star. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1925. LESSONS FROM THE ELECTIONS

Thames Star, Volume LIX, Issue 16644, 14 November 1925, Page 4

THE Thames Star.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1925. LESSONS FROM THE ELECTIONS

f “With malice towards none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right."—Lincoln.

Now the elections are over, and a majority Government is elected, if anything, with somewhat too large a majority, it is well to review what has transpired and gather what lessons we «an from the recent battle. The set-back to the Socialist Party has ibeen the more marked on account of the boasting in which that party indulged before the elections. On its own .pronouncements, it was to have 80 candidates; it had 56. It was going to secure the Treasury Benches. It was at least going to largely increase its number in Parliament. Mr H. E. Holland modestly referred to himself as “the future Prime Minister.” The party’s organisation was increased in all parts of the Dominion. It had much stronger financial means than ever before and its circulation of propaganda matter was multiplied many times over. In the final the party emerges after the election (first count) with four less seats than it had previously. This, however, was not its only loss. During the contest, its candidates grew quite desperate, and performed the strangest antics in publishing false canards and in tearing into very fragments their own mysterious land policy. In order to “save their bacon,” candidate after candidate declared for the freehold and dropped the blessed “usehold tenure” overboard. That the people should own their own homes, not merely occupy and use them, was the profession on which these Socialist reactionaries struggled to “collect votes, and to some extent succeeded. The party has by such means lost in prestige though it may have temporarily saved itself from decimation. What is to become of its land policy in the future after the party candidates have thus mauled it about, is a question with which the party has still to deal. After the Franklin byelection, Mr Jordan advised that the “usehold” policy should be dropped. He said the people did not want it. Mr Holland stood for the policy. This general election demonstrates that Mr Jordan was right, and Mr Holland entirely WTong. This leader misled his party, and the party members know it. To try and save the party’s face, Mr W. Nash, secretary of the New Zealand Labour Party, resorts to figures. He contends that though they lost seats, they gained largely on votes. In the matter of figuring, this secretary figures badly; in other words, what he presents is generally unreliable. He says the party polled 175,000, and 30,000 over the previous election. On close examination, we find it polled 172,665, and its increase (with 12 more candidates) was 21,258. These figures show that the party barely maintained its voting strength if it did not actually go back, because the total of votes cast was increased by 11,258. The fact that so many as 172,665 electors voted for this Socialist opportunist party’s candidates is one to which we would advise the people of New Zealand to give full consideration. It is far too large a number for a party that toys with “direct action” and other, destructive policies to secure. This large vote is, of course, mainly concentrated in the industrial centres. The members ■ returned are as follows ;—Auckland district, 5; Christchurch, 4; Welling-j ton, 2; and West Coast (South Island) 2. The moderate parties have, to some extent, neglected the work of organising in these centres, and such neglect should he rectified as early as possible. Otago and Southland will have nothing to do with the returning of Red candidates, and we wish to see the North Island follow their example. It will he a grave mistake if the moderate electors,' thinking they have won a complete victory over the extreme Socialist and semi-Bolshevist forces, -allow themselves to fall into apathy. For the next elections the time to start, working is now. The Socialist advocates are constantly active; tligv are specious, cunning -and rather unscrupulous in their methods of advocacy. Those who stand for the Empire. for constitutional methods at all times, and for co-operation instead of class war, should be active from one election to the next. That is our lesson. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”