WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 February 1923, Page 1

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

PARTY SPECULATIONS. SOME CURRENT GOSSIP. SPECIAL TO GUARDIAN’. WELLINGTON. Feb. 21 As was inevitable, the short session of Parliament and its happenings are being followed by a number of more or less circumstantial stories which would have credulous people believe that the party negotiations of last week are being entirely overshadowed by the intriguing which is going on at the present time. The ‘‘Dominion” touches lightly on the fringe ol the current gossip. "It is understood,” it says, “that members of the Reform Party have been unofficially discussing with members of the Liberal Party the possibility, if not of fusion, at least ol a working arrangement to enable tlie business of the country to be carried out satisfactorily dining the next session of Parliament. The party leaders are said to have no objection to these conversations, hut the negotiations have not yet progressed far enough for either leader to he concerned in them.’ Speculation of this kind does not carry the reader very far, but its appearance ill the ■’Dominion.” Mr Massey s chiel journalistic ally in attempting to promote a working arrangement between the I!. lorn ers and the Liberals, gives it some significance. It is obvious that the Prime Minister's troubles were merely defend, not overcome, by the rejection of Mr Wilford’s no-confidence motion and that his need tor a definite understanding with his traditional opponents remains. A !L -• iiri'Ti.K. I :11 political ga-sip suggests much more sensational occurrences than any the "Dominion” implies. According to I his not very reliable authority, a considerable body of Reformers on one side anti a considerable body ol Liberals on the other have brought themselves to believe that Ihe time for a readiusDiient of party lines has arrived. They are not obse-sed hy Mr Massey’s notion that the three party system is

"it curse to the country” or even satisfied that it is undesirable; lutt they are convinced that there is need lor a revision of I lie "point nf view” of hoi It the older parties and that the same progressives, who, they contend, do not all sit, on one side ol the House, should he getting together. Their '‘readjustment" would involve the retirement of Mr Massev at some lime convenient to himself after the next session of Parliament and tlie assumption of the title ol National Liberals by all members alio were prepart'd In thru" in their lot with the new order. It all sounds very sim;ilo and admirable, hut apparently neither Mr Mas cy and his colleagues titii- Mr Willonl a.ml hr- lieutenants have yet hi-’ii eomodled, and it is reasoiiahle to assume that they wotdd have somethin"' to sav in the matter. ELECTORAL REFORM. Meanwhile electoral reform appears to be one of the eltief counters in the tie ,:oh:t ioiis which liltlst take place hei ween the lao of larties before Par-

liament reassembles. Mr Massey himsell and many ol his followers have so recently denounced proportional representation. maittlv mi the ground that it would necessitate unwieldy constituencies ami practically do away with the "country quoin." that it seems highly improbable this system would lie accepted liv the party ill possession of rlie Treastirv Reiicltes. The alternative i- preferential viiing. which many popie believe the Prime Minister has determined to propose in tiny ease and which ti considerable number of Liberals in their hearts wetild prefer to the more revolutionary change. Hut even preferential voting presents difficulties which have not yet been considered by either i lie leaders nr the rank and lile of the older parties. The Labour Party certainly would insist to all the lengths it could upon the adoption of the system lirsf proposed hy Mr McCombs 1)v which each candidate in the process of counting the votes would lie j note I against each other candidate on ! the hallo! paper. This might produce re-itlts uhieh. though strictly logical, neither the Reformers nor the Liberals would regard as desirable. IDENTICAL.

-Mr I’. I. O’ltog.in, one of (he most capable and per-isteiil advocates of proportional representation, writing in Iho “Post” last evening states the difference between this system and preferential voting veiy clearly. '■The difference between the two svstems,”

be >ins. “is that the proportional system requires plural electorates” while “ihe absolute ma jority system, on I lie other hand, limits the choice of the voter and effet imply destroys all chance of minority representation. The systems, of course, are tundamoiitally different, hut Ihe method of marking the ballot paper is identical in each. I would n- It year !: :•I ■ ■ t-- to hear this fact in mind when tbev read the wrig-

gling and inaccurate speeches bv which certain politicians are now endeavouring at ollee lo discredit the proportional system, and to justify that which they have now determined lo inlliei on Ihe country.” Mr D'Pegan is on of those picturesque i.ml hr re!, rifoneers who will countenance no compromise and who in aimim/ high f-eoiieiitlv mi-s an atta.inalile mark. It if he is absolutely right in saying that marking the hallo! pa.per under the system oj proportional representation is identically the same a> marking it under preferential voting. Mere the opponents of the larger reform are not strengthening t heir case by teiterate.i statements to the contrary.