ELECTION RESULTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2518, 14 December 1922, Page 4

ELECTION RESULTS.

PRESS COMMENTS. PARTY BEFORE PERSONALITY. “A feature to lie noticed in a preliminary survey of the election results, before any analysis of figures or party losses and gains, is the failure of two men in particular to render themselves acceptable to the electors (comments the “New Zealand Herald”). Sir Andrew Russell was rejected in Hawke's Bay, Sir Frederick Lang in Manukau. Much has been said at different times of the lack of men of outstanding calibre and achievement in Parliament. On this occasion two of them, offering their services have not been i’eturned. Sir Andrew Russell was a leader of New Zealanders when leadership counted more than anything else. He proved his worth, ability, and personality in some of the most critical enterprises in which men fromthis Dominion were ever engaged. Now, when offering himself to his country in another capacity, he finds that offer declined. Sir Frederick Lang, by virtue of a long and distinguished career, during a portion of which he filled with dignity and distinction an office making severe calls upon any man, was another who deserved well ot New Zealand. Each has joined the ranks of the defeated. It is perfectly obvious that in the politics of the Dominion at the present time, party stands well before personality. That may be said without implying anything against the two candidates who succeeded where these two men of greater personal distinction did not establish a strong enough claim to render themselves acceptable to the electorate.”

MINORITY MEMBERS. If the results of the General Election of 191!) gave the Reform Party occasion for self-congratulation on having removed the safeguard of the second ballot, the results of last Thursday must have impressed upon the party the fact that a defective electoral law cannot be depended upon to bestow the benefit of its errors on any one party in perpetuity (remarks the “Lyttelton Times"). In the last Parliament (excluding the Maori members from consideration) there were twentythree members who held their seats despite the fact that a majority of their constituents voted against them. The Reform Party counted in its Parliamentary ranks sixteen of these minority members. The Labour Party had four, and the Liberal. Party had three. In the new Parliament there will again be twen-ty-three. minority members, but a change has come over the ratio of distribution. Speaking subject to party changes which later returns may bring about in certain very close contests, it would appear that the Reform Party’s Share of the twenty-three will be only eight,' all in the North Island, the balance being made up of nine Liberals and six Labourites. The Keform minority members are: —Harris (W alternate, Parr (.Eden), Potter (Roskill), Dickson (Parnell), Lysnar (Gisborne), Sykes (Masterton), Field (Otaki), and Sir John Luke (Wellngton North). For these eight candidate ‘uncompleted and uncorrected returns show'that about 29000 votes were cast and that about 07,000 votes cast against them. The Liberal minority members comprise : Wilford (Huttj, Lye (Waikato), Corrigan (Patea), and M’lvay (Hawke’s Bay), in the North island and Buddo (Kaiapoi), leitt (Christchurch North), Witty Riccarton), Hanan (Invercargill) and de la Perrelle (Awarua), in the South Island. About 31,000 votes were cast for these nine members and something over 40,000 votes went against them. Labour has three minoritiy candidates —M’llvride (Napier), Langston (Waimarino) and Monteith (Wellington E.) —in the North Island, and three in the South —O’Brien (Westland), Armstrong (Christchurch East), and Sullivan (Avon). For these six candidates about 22,000 votes were polled and there were over 29,000 votes' against them. The twentythree minority candidates polled in the aggregate more than 24,000 fewer votes than were accorded to their opponents.”

ARGUMENT FOR FUSION

After analysing the figures and forecasting the probable course of events on the meeting of Parliament the “Poverty Bay Herald" says': “Thus we would reach a political impasse, which could only be overcome by another appeal to the constituencies. We trust, however, that common sense will come to the rescue and avoid the necessity for such an expensive and really un-called-for proceeding. The election results have confirmed what we have been all along contending, that there is no room in New Zealand politics for the three-party system and thaL it is high time a new delimitation of political boundaries was made. This can only be effected with satisfaction to the country and with promise of tranquillity by a fusion of the Reform and Liberal interests. YVe see no reason whatever why such a coalition should not take place. A fair and impartial examination of the principles which each party stands for will show there xs no substantial difference certainly no vital issue which can warrant the continuance of a state of political unrest and confusion. The aims of each are national in character for, the welfare of all classes and the general uplift of the community, Reform Cabinet

lias adopted all the measures of progressive policy introduced by its predecessors and has gone further and extended the scope and benefit of these measures. Nothing but personal ambition can stand in the way of a fusion of the two parties and we consider that in the interests of the country the leaders should get together, reconcile whatever small differences there may lie, and agree upon the construction of a Cabinet which will be thoroughly representative of the two main parlies returned by the electors. Ihe most satisfactory feature of the last elections is that whilst Red Labour made gains, as was expected in the city constituencies, ts inlluence outside the big centres was found not to be great.”