THE POSITION OF LABOUR.

Shannon News, 23 February 1923, Page 4

THE POSITION OF LABOUR.

CASE *FOR f PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. /Appeal for unity. - . DUNEDIN, Last, Night. Mr H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour Party, Addressed .a meeting at South Dunedin-, The speaker was frequently applauded, and at the close was' accorded a vote of thanks and; confidence. < He claimed-that .the ~outstanding characteristic vof the last qleetion was tlic overwhelming defeat of Reform and the increase in Labour’s .representation. Mr Wilford’s dilemma was, he said, that prior to the election lie had declared'in the House that lie would never vote : with Labour to turn Mr Massey out, and that .lie would never take office with the assistance of Labour. The speaker that the membership of the different parties was a strong case fqr proportional Representation. Had this system been ;in vogue, Labour ■vfould have li&d two more seats , out of' the 40 iL had contested, and if it had contested the 80 electorates, it would probably; have had* 25 members in the House. , - Dealing with the new Labour members, Mr Holland declared that they could easily hold their own in debate., Every one of . them was a brilliant speaker,, It had bCen said, that the Roman Catholics were behind the Labour Party. His .reply .to that was that, at last election he was opposed by a Catholic, and Mr ' Howard Elliott’s strongest supporters were all on his opponent’s committee. (Laughter.) .After explaining how the Labour Party came to nominate Mr Me-'. Combs for the Speakership, Mr Holland {added';,: that Mr Statham had already proved /"himself one of . fairest speakers New Zealand.had ever had/ The position at present was that' Labour had no confidence in Mr Massey,'and" in the future it would voTo as in tlie past, and so long as Mr /Massey accepted a motion as a no-, confidence motion, the Labour Party .would ;a/'ways vote for it. In'attacking the Liberals. Mr Holland stated that a number of them, such as Messrs Witty and Bell, had defeated. Government candidates, and had been elected by the workers because. they .were against the Government. How, then, could they be asked to reconcile their post-election attitude'with 1 their pre-election attitude? Mr Wilford's idea was that he should take the Treasury. benches, and '(that he would be held there by Re/form.,, Mr Wilford would not deny that. Askeil how he would hold office if he secured ;it,.(Mr /Wilford had replied: “Labour could not defeat us unless Reform went with it.’’ That (might be all right in petty Police; Court fighting, but was no good in the big political fighting of the epun-, try. It would be far better for Mr Wilford to go over to the Government benches and be done with it. In closing, Mr Holland eloquently urged the sinking of petty differences in the common aim.

In reference to conversations between Reformers and Liberals, he said that he did not know what would occur. If there was a combination the Government Avould go on for another three* years, and wpuld probably .introduce the preferential yoting system,* which was quite different from proportional representation. t .