The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1930 A CHOICE OF THREE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 964, 6 May 1930, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1930 A CHOICE OF THREE

IF political contests were decided on the traditional sporting 1 principle—“ Let the best man win!”—it would be an easy task today to name the winner of the Parnell by-election poll. Frankly, and beyond dispute or doubt, Mr. T. Bloodworth, the Labour candidate, would at midnight tomorrow see visions and dream dreams of Parliamentary service this year and all the glory of Ministerial rank some time. Politically, he is the best of the three candidates and is the most alert thinker of them all. Those who l efuse to admit that are simply either inflexible partisans wilfully blind to plain truth, or have no real knowledge of true polities.

But it is not likely that the electors’ choice will alight upon the Labour candidate in an aura of favour like a rich blessing. This may seem illogical and even stupid, but Mr. Bloodworth’s rejection appears to be one of the certain results of the poll. And for these clear and simple reasons: First, the issue of the electoral ballot tomorrow will be determined on party interests, not on any kind of political or personal merit; and, second, a former Reform stronghold, almost constitutionally conservative to a marked degree, recognises the strength of the other claimants lor a vacant seat in Parliament, and realises the necessity of exercising all its voting force to recapture a citadel that was lost m the days of discontent and electoral dazzlement. So it can be said more prosaically than prophetically that the Labour candidate s strength in merit as a politician is his greatest weakness. Ten thousand and more non-Labour electors in Parnell know thoroughly that they must vote and make sure of their anti-Soeialist choice or be content to lose the seat for nearly two years at least.

Thus, in anticipating the outcome of the poll, the electors’ choice of three candidates may be reduced to a choice of two. Reform or United? That, really, is the test question, although the majority ot the electors will have to keep in mind with unusual prominence Labour’s strong challenge. Between Mr. Endean leiorms standard-bearer, and Mr. Donald, contestant for the United Government and Party, there is much the same difference as that distinguishing Tweedledum from Tweedledee. Both are pleasant f ellows with ample leisure and means to enable them to serve their country as a member of Parliament. They are not carpet-baggers in any sense of the derisive term and need not become professional politicians. And it is not unfair to say with candour that each would have been none the worse for spending more of his leisure and easy opportunities to acquire knowledge m a close study of politics and the rather inexa'et and fiocculent science of government. Both have much to learn politically and need a good deal of propping up. But, as already said in the best ot goodwill, they are jolly good fellows, willing to learn and with almost enviable advantages for gaining an essential political education. As a candidate Mr. Donald must accept the handicap ot having an elder brother, not only m Parliament, but in the Ministry. Does the country need two of exactly the same kind, or wiJ 1 the Parnell electorate wish to establish more firmly in New Zealand the British traditional practice of legislation by political families?

All individuals and all things political considered, it is clearer than ever that tomorrow’s poll will be a keen and fairly cJose test of the rival parties. If that point of issue be conceded Ut is difficult to find any other ground of decision) should the Reform Party or the United Government be given the verdict? It cannot be denied that the record of the Reform Administration was anything but perfect, and ultimately brought about its disciplinary downfall. It lost Parnell because many dissatisfied Reform supporters deserted from their camp and exercised the fickleness and instability which were to be repeated by the candidate they capriciously helped to elect. Now, it is reasonable to niter that the straying sheep will return to the Reform fold tomorrow. . The party has learnt its lesson in the wilderness. As foi the United Government’s record, it only can he described as a lamentable sequence of political breaches of promise, with the taxpayers paying the damages all the time. A more feckless Ministry never before wandered into administration. So, in the language of Turf prophets, the order of favouritism in the Parnell race tomorrow should be:— E<ndean, Donald, Bloodworth.

CAPRICIOUS ENGINEERS

ONE of the most disconcerting features of the cancellation of the Morningside tunnel scheme was the fact that the same engineers who endorsed it as a sound project in 1926 condemned it a few months ago, when the United Government decided definitely to abandon the proposal. If this rather alarming change of front on the part of departmental engineers was suspected before, it is now confirmed by statements made by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates at liis meeting last evening. According to Mr. Coates, the engineers said, in 1926, that the deviation would return eight per cent, on the cost of construction. Yet, in the report presented to Mr. Taverner by the same engineers, the tunnel was no longer classed as a work of major importance, though to a business man any scheme that would pay eight per cent, would require no second inquiry.

What the public would like to know is whether the engineers “trimmed sail” as a matter of personal expediency, or whether the gentle arts of suggestion and pressure were brought to bear to influence their decisions. Without an adverse report, the Government clearly had no warrant for cancelling the work just as technically it had less warrant for cancelling the RotoruaTaupo line, on which a considerable sum had been spent, and the Palmerston North deviation, which is a monument to political futility, with grass now growing over the rapidly-deteriorating cuttings and embankments formed at enormous expense in the vicinity of the Manawatu town. Like the Morningside tunnel, each of these schemes had been recommended by engineers, and the uneasy feeling that political considerations influenced either the first or the last reports can only be removed by publication of complete documentary evidence.

In the case of~the South Island railway, engineering judgments have taken the opposite course. A few"" years ago the wisdom of the line as an economic proposition was questioned by competent men. Now the Government claims to have equally good professional authority for going on with the work. If this process continues, New Zealand departmental engineering will get a bad name for inconsistency, even if the repeated vacillations are no fault of the engineers themselves. Mature experience leads the public to conclude that it can rarely expect consistency in politicians; but it clings to the delusion that engineers are in a different category. If experts are to change their opinions with every change of Government, the groping elector will soon be more bewildered than over v _