The Star. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1928. NOTES OF THE DAY.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18615, 17 November 1928, Page 4

The Star. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1928. NOTES OF THE DAY.

r 1 ■'HE COMMENT of “ The Times ” on the New Zealand election, cabled from London to-day, certainly reveals how completely a reputable newspaper may misunderstand the conditions in a country other than its own. Nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion that the defeat of the Coates Government was not intended by the people. The one outstanding fact about the position, which some of our Reform friends quite fail to grasp, is that the verdict of the polls was emphatically one against the Government. Equally wide of the mark is the statement by “ The Times ” that the United Party is not popular or significant in itself. That a new party, hastily organised and rushed into an election campaign a few weeks before the polls, should win a third of the seats is surely in itself significant. The point on which emphasis needs to be laid, however, is that the result of the election was equivalent to an overwhelming vote of no-confidence in the Coates administration. In view of this verdict, the further suggestion of “The Times” that Mr Coates might offer the vacant portfolios to the United Party is surely ludicrous. Mr Coates has nothing to offer. Mr Holland, maybe, might have something to offer, and Sir Joseph Ward may have something to offer, but all that there is for Mr Coates at the moment is a graceful retreat.

SOME CONFUSION exists in the minds of the public, and especially in the minds of those who take their politics from Reform journals, as to the probable re-alignment of parties in the new House. It is therefore timely to set out clearly why the Liberal newspapers say that Sir Joseph Ward must be the new Prime Minister, and why they maintain that there is every probability of his continuing in office for the next three years. The outstanding fact of the election is the complete rout of the Reform Party, and the unmistakable declaration of the voters that they are finished with it. In the face of this declaration it would be not only wrong but stupid for Sir Joseph Ward to consider a coalition with the Reform Party, and negotiations in that quarter may therefore he ruled out. It is equally clear that the Lahour Party, while pledged and determined to vote the Reform Government out, will decline to ally itself with any other party, and will seek to retain its position as the official Opposition. The position, then, is that Sir Joseph Ward, as the leader of the larger group in the House, other than Reform, must be sent for to form a Cabinet. With the support of Independent members he would still lack a working majority, and if he could not secure ten or a dozen votes from the more independent and progressive members of the Reform Party, without talk of pledges or coalition, his obvious course would he to appeal to the country. The result, undoubtedly, would be a further landslide for Liberalism, and this fact is so patent to members of the Reform Party, many of whom have been returned to office by a mere handful of votes, that they would not dare to risk an election, and would be compelled to give Sir Joseph Ward sufficient support to avert a dissolution. We believe that the leader of the United Party is determined to go to the country unless he can be sure of the unqualified support of a majority of the House. Rut an election is the one thing the Reformers will seek to avoid.

PARLIAMENT will adopt proportional ’ * representation, with the grouping of large electorates, or will simply provide for preferential voting in single member constituencies, is not quite clear at present, but electoral reform is certain. It is interesting, therefore, to analyse the recent voting and to see how the election would have been affected by a more scientific electoral system. The Reform vote was roughly 242,000, and the anti-Reform vote was 403,000 (including 204,000 Liberal and 184,000 Labour votes). Reform contested 71 seats, while Labour contested 57 and United 55 seats. On these figures the Liberals secured the greatest number of votes for each seal and, if they had contested as many seats as Reform, would have secured a substantially larger aggregate of votes than the Reformers. There must always be grave anomalies with the present system of election. For instance, in the Canterbury seats the United and Reform Parties, polling twice as many votes as the Labour Party, secured three seats each to Labour’s five. The position was even more anomalous in the city and suburban seats. The voting, by parties, and the seats won, and the distribution that would have been effected under P.R., may be set out as follows:Seats __ , Votes. Seats. under P.R. Labour 26,812 4 2.5 United 21,147 1 2.0 Reform 15,695 1 1.5 The fact that the Reform Party did not nominate a candidate in Christchurch East would reduce the aggregate Reform vote, and probably tip the scale in favour of that party to the extent of winning the odd seat, giving each party two representatives. But the chief advantage of P.R. is that it enables the voter to indicate exact preferences for individuals or parties, without the danger of wasting a vote; and now that the old bogey of a-vote-for-Liberalism-is-a-vote-for-Labour has been laid, we should expect to find Liberal representation greatly strengthened under a scientific system of voting.