HAURAKI BY-ELECTION

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 133, 8 June 1931, Page 6

HAURAKI BY-ELECTION

(Sir,— Al liie 1928 General Electior the voting at Hauraki was as follows: Hall (Reform 3,826 Allan (United) 2,935 Petrie (Labour) 2,411 'Die Reform candidate was therefore returned on a minority vote in a three cornered contest. But at the 193 L by election the voting was: Massey (Reform 4.923 Petrie (Labour 2,599 Allan (United) 997 Ross (Country) 01-*’-The Reform candidate thus scored a clear majority in a four-cornered contest. and this oven in spite of the fact that there was a Country Party can didate in the field—whose votes, as all parties agreed, were nearly all votes that would otherwise have gone to Reform. The first lesson to be learnt from Hauraki is. then, that there has been a big swing-over to Reform; and this has been equally marked in the industrial, the suburban, and the rural portions of the electorate. It is a striking sign of the times, and a direct indication of what will happen everywhere all over the Dominion, at the next general election. Another significant, .fact is the near annihilation of the United vote. With the same candidate as before, the United vote fell from 2,935 at the. general election to a mere, remnant of 997 at the by-election. In other words, more than two-thirds of those who had supported the United Party in 1928 had erased to support it in 1931. If this is an indication of the position throughout the Dominion, there cannot he even one United Minister or ALP. who may hope to retain his seat after the next general election, ’lhe United Party is a weed which grew overnight and. being without any roots, has with ered in the morning sun. Or. to change the metaphor, the United Party sprang into existence on a policy of “Borrow, boom, and burst;*’ and, like the finances of our unfortunate Dominion under United rule, the United Party itself. as a parly, has borrowed and boomed—ami now bui’Ft. At Hauraki! the Government candidate suffered even the ultimate humiliation of forfeiting' liis deposit. Again Mr Forbes himself declared that"Hauraki was a test of the people’s attitude lo his proposal for the formation of <1 new ‘‘Nationalist” Party. Mr Forbes iioyv has his answer: the Re form Party which rejected his proposal for fusion scored 4.02? votes, as compared with 997 votes for Mr Follies and fusion. So even the fusion-tactics, clever though they were from the United Party point of* view, have tailed in their object (to save Mr Forbes and his party'). It is evident that the great mass of the electors do not desire fusion. Finally, maiiv people feared that this rear would witness something in the nature of a landslide to the Labour Party. Hauraki proves that such fears had no foundation. The Labour vote increased onlv from 2.111 to 2.599. This means that New Zealand is not going to follow New South Wales. It is clear, thus, that there are only two parties to be seriously considered in future--the Reform Party ami lhe Labour Party. The next general election will almost certainly return a Reform Government with a clear major ity of seats. A forecast may be ventured: Reform 4.1. Labour 2-1. United (or Nationali.-t I 9. I mlcpciidont 2.—1 am, etc., *• M ALVLKNIAN.”