OTHER PAPERS’ OPINIONS.

Putaruru Press, Volume VIII, Issue 338, 15 May 1930, Page 4

OTHER PAPERS’ OPINIONS.

THE PARNELL ELECTION. It was a sorry triumph for the Reform Party that of the 2000 odd votes going ■ begging they secured only 10 per cent. Labour has much better cause for congratulation in securing nearly 25 per cent, of these votes. Condolences are due to the country on the apathy or disgust which prevented no less than 1500 of the electors who had previously voted for the United Party’s candidate from voting at all yesterday. Further condolences are due to the country on the fact that the party which has been so grievously humiliated is in charge of the Government, and that. the only change which it is likely to suffer from yesterday’s disaster is an increased susceptibility to pressure from a party whose policy it detests. A Government which is content to drift must expect such bumps as it received at Parnell yesterday and may be thankful that it was no worse. But, depressing as the result may be for the Government, it offers no reasonable ground for elation on the part of any other party or for satisfaction on the part of the country. The fundamental point about the Parnell election is that it provides no solution or clarification of the grave and growing difficulties with which the country is faced. It further discredits a Government which was sufficiently discredited before, but it does not make that Government’s position untenable, nor does it offer the hope of an alternative. For a Government carrying on with a normal working majority the loss of the Hutt and Parnell seats, counting for four on a division, would have been a serious matter, but a minority Government is less sensitive. “ He that is down need fear no fall.” In the House it is really Labour and not Reform that has been strengthened by Reform’s victory over the Government, since its chief effect will he, as we have suggested, to make the Government more liable to be pushed by Labour in a direction even more distasteful to Reform than to the Government itself. But Labour’s supreme cause for satisfaction is in the sight of its opponents, whose mutual differences, apart from personal rivalries and prejudices, are really no more than those between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, so exaggerating them as to play right into the hands of the party to which on most essential points they are both diametrically opposed. The best thing possible in Parnell would have been the win- i ning of the seat by Mr. Jenkins for

fusion as a Reformer after he had lost it as a United member from his loyalty to the same cause. The second best would have been a victory for the Labour Party, which might have brought the other two parties to their senses. But it is evident that some more serious disaster will be needed to effect, so startling a change.—Wellington Evening Post.

The result of the polling should not be cause for any surprise. The Parnell electorate, up till the election of 1928 at all events, had come to be •relied upon to return a Reform Party candidate. For nineteen years it had consistently voted that way.

As matters stand, the United Party has failed to secure the vote of confidence which it sought from Parnell, and is numerically weaker in Parliament. There was no recapture for it at Parnell of the wave of reactionary feeling upon which it was able to enter the haven of office.—Otago Daily Times.

As we said a day or two ago, the result does not alter the Parliamentary situation, which, for reasons that time only makes more obvious, is difficult and dangerous, but it is the first clearly measurable indication that the public has grasped those reasons, is alarmed "by them, and is anxious to re-establish government by popular mandate. The Unjted Government has no mandate from, the electors, but even if it had, it could not exercise it, and it has neither spirit nor principle enough to refuse to govern under dictation. The public’s eyes began to be opened to all this almost as soon as the Government took office by unmistakeable evidence of the Government’s behaviour, and that it has watched the Government with growing disgust and resentment has been sufficiently clear to every observer who is honest with himself.—Christchurch Press.

The result of yesterday’s election has not come as a surprise to anybody, and certainly not as a disappointment to the Liberal Party. Everybody knows where Mr. Endean stands, and that was more than they could say of Mr. Jenkins. Perhaps the most significant thing about the by-election was the decline in the Reform vote, which may be set out as follows:—l92s, Mr. J. S. Dickson, 8497; 1928, Mr. J. S. Dickson, 4793; 1930, Mr. W. P. • Endean, 4607. There was also a big slump in the total number of votes cast yesterday, and roughly it was 2300 less than the votes polled in 1925 or 1928. When it is considered that these absentees were certainly not Reform voters, because Reform made desperate efforts to win the seat, the position is by no means reassuring to Mr. Coates and his followers.—Christchurch Star.

Because the Parnell by-election has resulted in the return of tAe Reform candidate it must not be accepted as a general indication that the political pendulum has again swung in the direction of Mr. Coates’ party. Parnell is a strong Conservative centre. Last election it returned Mr. Jenkins, influenced by the wave of disappointment that swept the country at' the lack of a policy of the Reform Party. This election Mr. Jenkins’ resignation and joining with Reform, the fact, that the United Party . has not made good its election promises, the hostility to the Government’s railway gpolicy and other causes of discontent, brought about a change over. Parnell returned to its old political love. The election was disappointing to the extent that though the leaders of both the United and Reform parties took an active part the campaign was very devoid of policy measures. Government speakers were mainly content to defend tljeir leader and attack Reform for their actions when on the Treasury benches. Reformers in the mission of critics criticised the acts of the Government and defended their policy. It was the old fight of “ ins and the outs,” punctuated by the cry of “ Codlin’s your man.” It was left to the Labour candidate to provide the electors with the most “ meat ” in his speeches, but Mr. Bloodworth had a hopeless task. And yet Labour has more reason to be elated than either of the other parties. It increased the number of votes cast for it in compari--s.n with the last election, and this at a poll at least 10 per cent, smaller , than at the general election. I Prior to the campaign the subject of the fusion of the anti-Labour parties was brought into prominence by Mr. Jenkins. Possibly with clearer vision than some of the leaders, he saw the impossibility of maintaining the present position, and strove to ■bring about the unity of Reform and United. However, fusion was rele-

gated to the background in the election itself. But it is not eliminated, however much politicians shirk the issue. The question has to be faced, and the obvious inference is that the leaders must give a lead. The present by-election will not unravel the political tangle, nor can a dissolution of which much was heard be relied upon to accomplish it. The only real basis must be the production of a sound, progressive policy on which I the anti-Labour parties can unite. A certain amount of light was thrown on the financial position Of the country. The statement issued by the Prime Minister showed a balanced budget, but without fuller details comment must be restricted. All that can be said is that through additional taxation and customs the revenue rose £1,750,000, and that this was used with the exception of £150,000. Deducting the deficit of half a million the expenditure increased more than a million. The Parnell by-election transfers one vote from United to Reform. , That is about all that can be said I of it.—Morrinsville Stan