MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 1923.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2586, 29 May 1923, Page 4

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 1923.

HOW THE LABOUR PARTY FARED. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.) As far as we have been able to get returns we have summarised the results throughout the Dominion of those elections as affecting the N.Z. Labour Party which nominated candidates in a number of boroughs. The details we here present we feel sure will be of very general interest to readrs: — RESULTS. WELLINGTON: Contested Mayoralty and all seats. City Council 15; Hospital Board 14; Harbour Board 4. Elected: two. on City Council and one on Hospital Board. Representation: 3, previously 5. HASTINGS: Two nominated in the name of the party and two sympathisers. All four at bottom of the poll, none elected. NAPIER: There were no Labour Party candidates nominated. WAITARA: Three nominated for Council, one elected, previously none.

NEW PLYMOUTH: Four nominated for Council, none elected. . WANGANUI: Three nominated for Council, none elected. One for Harbour Board, elected. Representation 1, tpreviously none. CHRISTCHURCH: Nominated 10 for Council, 6 elected. Representation 6, previously 7. For Harbour Board 3 nominated, elected 1. For Hospital Hoard 5 nominated, 1 elected.

AUCKLAND: Nominated 12 for Council, 1 .elected. For Hospital Board nominated 5, none elected. For the Harbour Board one elected. Representation 2, previously 4. DUNEDIN: Nominated 6 for Council; 3 for Hospital Board; 3 for Harbour Board. One elected to Council, previously none. GREYMOUTH: Nominated 4 for Council, 1 elected. For Hospital Board nominated 4, none elected. Representation 1, previously 3. ■WESTPORT: Nominated 3 for Council, 3 elected. Nominated 2 for Hospital Board, elected 1. Representation increased by 1. PETONE: Nominated 4 for Council, none elected. INVERCARGILL: All the party’s candidates defeated. Taking these thirteen communities the sum (total is that the party has 21 representatives in all whereas the number previously was 25. PARTY LITTLE CONSIDERED. A closer examination of the returns indicate very plainly that the electors are very little impressed by party considerations in relation to Municipal affairs practically throughout New Zealand. In many instances where leading Labour Party men are elected the general voting, shows that their return was on grounds of personality, special advantages of advertisement, or par-ticular-qualification as citizens and quite independent of party appeal. We find single Labour men elected with majorities of 2,000 to 3,000 over their colleagues on the same party ticket showing that electors voted for the man and not for the party. It can be said with truth that the people in general throughout New Zealand, with the exception of a small minority, are opposed Co mixing up party politics with the issues of the good government of their city or town. New Zealand people recognise that whilst party has its legitimate place in Parliamentary politics it is more likely to be a hindrance and a nuisance when obtruded into the management of Hospital Boards, Harbour Boards, and City Councils than any material benefit. After many years of trying to gain control the party is no further forward to-day than ever it was, ■and the reason, we believe, is that ■the workers of New Zealand do not want any political party to be in control of the Municipal affairs which so directly concern them as citizens.