WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 19 June 1928, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

THE REFORM RALLY

AN IMPRESSIVE. DEMONSTRATION.

(Special to “ Guardian ”.) X WELLINGTON, Julie 16. 'J'lie Reform Rally in the Wellington Town Hall on Thursday night was a well organised and admirably conducted demonstration. The Prime Minister had his audience with him from beginning to end, and his supporting colleagues, though they did not inspire the same enthusiasm as did their chief, were equally well received. Mr Coates did not hesitate to cover debatable ground, lie seemed at times, indeed, rather to invite criticism; but none of bis contentions were seriously challenged and if there were dissentients in the audience they were of the forbearing order. The gathering, 'of course, was a select one, the great hall being practically filled by ticket-holders before the doors were opened to the general public. The Prime Minister and his colleagues, however, have good reason to be well satisfied by the cordiality of their reception and by the emphasis with which a somewhat ponderous motion of confidence was endorsed. Ministers may be said -to have opened the second stage of their election campaign under favourable auspices. THAT SLOGAN; t. • . v The “Evening Post” at this stage of the campaign does not feel called ■ upon to express any preference between the parties; hut it takes the opportunity afforded by Thursday’s rally to remind the Government tliat .it has reversed the application of its resounding ’slogan at'the last general election. “ Not ‘ less Government in business,’ Amt more,” it says, “ is the principle underlying the special consideration extended to one class of the commun'ity or another in the rural credit schemes which'carry substantial State aid, in the motor-bus regulations which have been proved to go beyond the point of equalising competition and actually create a monopoly for existing “interests, in the pork subsidy and in the increased protection of wheatgrowers, coupled with a Minister’s advice to them to bold tlieir wheat.” These are problems bearing very closely upon the Prime Minister’s slogan, and during the next few months Mr Coates and Ills colleagues will have to make up their minds definitely whether they will side with socialistic adventure or with sound business principles. FRIENDLY ADVICE.

The “ Dominion ” while in duty bound to make the most of the Government’s appeal to .the electors warns Mr Coates and his colleagues that this is no time for coquetting with the socailistic elements of the community. “ Unfair State or local body competition with private business is indefensible,” it says, “ and that this has taken place in certain directions has been established, though perhaps not to the extent asserted. We have no sympathy with activities of this description, and. indeed have condemned them. It is well to bear in mind, however, that wholesale and general denunciation of the Government in such matters is likely to do more harm than good. Reasoned criticism and the presentation of facts should secure redress, whereas wild'and exaggerated versions of ‘Government ■ inteiferenco in business ’ are liable to create a false impression and play into the hands of the Labour-Socialists.” ' There is every reason to believe that- the Prime Minister himself is quite prepared to review the whole question along the lines of his pronouncement three years ago. TWO PARTIES ONLY.

Mr Coates’s reiterated appeal for the extinction of the third party—at the moment without a leader and without a policy—has scarcely a ring of statesmanship. In the ideal State every elector would bo a party unto himself; but the Prime Minister would give him in this country only a choice between the Right Hon. J. G. Coates, and Mr H. E. Holland, two admirable gentlemen of course, but neither of them meeting the requirements of every individual in the community. Mr Coates knows perfectly well that an effective cure for the evil of ivote-splitting could be provided by a system of proportional representation; but be does not like this alternative because i 4 t would prevent a minority of the electors securing a majority of the seats in Parliament. To suggest that the electors should be compelled to vote either Reform or Labour is to challenge the fundamental right of the elector and to deny the justice of popular representation. * -- ■■■•