The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland. N.Z. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1927. THE FALL OF RAGLAN

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 163, 30 September 1927, Page 8

The Sun 42 Wyndham Street, Auckland. N.Z. FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1927. THE FALL OF RAGLAN

IT will not be necessary for the Belshazzars in politics to send “ for a Daniel to read the strange writing on the wall at Raglan. “Mene, Mene, Tekel the interpretation of the thing is as easy as a kindergarten lesson. The moving fingers of Labour’s hand have written the judgment of an electorate on the weight of the Reform Government. It may be a long time yet, however, before the fate of the party follows the movement of the beam against it. No reasonable excuse can be found for the defeat of the Government’s champion in the by-election battle for the Raglan seat in the House of Representatives. And it may be inferred without prejudice that there will be very little sympathy with the Reform Party in the day of its humiliation. Such generous thoughts as may be in chiveilrous minds ought to be given readily to Mr. Waring who was hustled into a game for which he had neither practice nor preference. Nor need he feel too sore about unkind Reform criticism of his immature candidature. It may seem a vexatious experience to have been featured journalistically as one of tlie outstanding personalities in the election campaign and then, twenty-four hours later, to be flagellated in the same journal as a political duffer. Though well on in honourable years he has ample time yet to learn that the Conservatives in politics will forgive anything except a humiliating defeat. In any ease there is no place in active politics for a Don Quixote even though, like that quaint hero, he has the courage, astride a donkey, to charge a fortress or break a lance with a Labour knight armed with a spade. The plain truth of the thing is that the fall of Raglan to Labour was due not to tlie man who fought for Reform, but to the party that selected him to hold a fortress. As we pointed out the other • day even supporters of the Government in the electorate held that it would be for the Government’s good to lose the seat. Frankly, like many others throughout the country, we did not anticipate the capitulation of a Reform stronghold to Labour, or to any other party. The late Mr. Bollard had so consolidated its defences that it should, under astute guidance, have withstood a more violent siege. There is something far wrong with a political party which, after holding a seat easily for sixteen years, not only loses it, but has its former aggregate vote inequitably halved and its majority reduced by more than the votes polled for its latest candidate. In the teeth of that grinning fact, it would be silly to talk of Labour’s minority representation. Altogether 2,193 votes were cast for the two Reform candidates, as against 3,817 for the other two, definitely and distinctly opposed to the Government. Less than two years ago Reform polled 4,470 votes, winning easily by 2,856. Labour on that occasion secured only 1,614 votes. To-day its representative is headed for Parliament with 2,193 votes to his credit. The result was a clear-cut triumph for Labour. It was also another reminder for the Liberals that all tlie king’s horses and all the king’s men will not set the Liberal Humpty-Dumpty on the wall again. And was it the fateful handwriting on the wall for Reform? A farming community has demonstrated that the old trick of scaring farmers with the cry of “Bolshie” has lost its effectiveness. 'Labour chose a farmer to contest Raglan, not a glib agitator from the street corner, and won the seat. Nothing more need be said about it. MR. WRIGHT IS RIGHT THIS once Mr. Wright is right, however often he may be wrong. The Minister of Education plainly informs parents that special privileges for their children, such as school hostels, a»e not to be paid for by the State. While admitting that parents had a perfect right to send their children where they liked, the Minister said if they wished them to attend boarding schools other than those of their own towns, they must pay for them; this was the policy the Education Department intended to enforce. The occasion was that, in Parliament yesterday, when the proposed hostel for the Wanganui Technical College was in dispute—a hostel, by tlie way, which is to cost £.16,000. Some of these hostels, which cannot be claimed as indispensable concomitants of education, have cost the Education Department a lot of money; this means really that taxpayers generally have been burdened with the cost of special accommodation for a privileged few. In one case, the Minister points out, the State paid £50,000 for a hostel, but of the 80 boarders only 20 were from tlie country. Mr. Wright argues that hostels should he made to pay their own way, and he instances two private hostels in Wellington which not only do this but pay rates and interest as well. The Education Department now demands that hostels attached to its schools shall pay for the cost of their conduct and also five per cent, interest on the cost of their building. This is merely business; the State cannot be expected to pay for the board and lodging of pupils at its secondary or technical schools any more than it should be required to feed the children of its primary schools. THE HARBOUR BRIDGE THAT the bridge over the harbour to connect the city with the North Shore is no idle dream of inactive visionaries is shown by the 10,000 signatures which have been appended to a petition to Parliament for its construction. It has been stated that a lasting and suitable structure could be built for three-quarters of a million sterling. Considering the size and prosperity of Auckland, and the potential wealth of the rapidly-growing North Shore suburbs, the problem of cost does not appear at all insuperable. Private interests would readily raise the money if they were permitted to exploit the undertaking to a degree which would return them reasonable profit. There are those who consider the time is not yet ripe for the bridge. That is a statement to be challenged; but even supposing it to be correct, there is no reason whatever why the preliminary details for the struetttre should not be discussed and settled so that the bridge can be pushed on without delay when the occasion arises.