MR HOWARD AND MR COATES.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20096, 27 November 1930, Page 16

MR HOWARD AND MR COATES.

TO TBI F.OITOH Off THE THEBB. Sir, —Political exigencies are responsible for many strange doings and sayings. As bearing out the truth of that statement,' I would cite Mr E. J. Howard, M.-P., and put in as a. relevant document the letter from him which appeared in "Wednesday's Press. Until he touches politics, Mr Howard is the most genial of men. Ho faces life with a smile and is an irrepressible Mark Tapley, whoso humour scintillates in the darkest hours of national jjloom. He fires off his quips and so assiduously that he has in public estimation attained the unfortunate position of Funny Man for the Labour Party. On account of that, most people will svmpathiso heartily with him. But when, as on "Wednesday, he lays aside the role of jester to assume that of Jeremiah or ThersiteSj most people will wish that ho had preserved his original character. They could laugh then. Such lucubrations as he delivered in his letter are enough to make his weep. He begins by- telling the Leader of the Opposition (Mir C'oates) that his statement 011 the fusion of the Reform and United Parties is sheer humbug. Then he takes the items of the Reform Party's policy one by one and adds a commentary to each. Here in similar fashion I would liko to add a commen tary oil each of Mr Howard's commen- I taries.

Mr. C'oates's first item was that there must be a return to tho "kite" Reform .Government's tapering ofE of public borrowing. Now, is Mr Howard playing the game when in commenting 011 that he goes back for figures to 1912 j ■ —thirteen yen rs before Mr Contes came into power as Prime Minister?] Let the rentier decide for ,him,sclf. Let us take Mr Howard's figures from 1925 onwards 1 . Wo find then that' our na tional debt, rose from £238,000,000 in 1936 to £2.51,000.000 in 1928—an increase of £13,000,000 for two years. It would lie interesting to hear Mr Downie Stewart explain that increase, us explain it he coukl to tho discomfiture of Mr Howard. What I would point out, however, is that if the Reform Government chastised the taxpayers with whips, the United Government has chastised them with scorpions. In its first year of office the national indebtedness rose I'roiti £251,000,000 to £264,000,000, an increase of iId.OOOJOQO for «>ne y6ar. Why did Mr Howard stop so suddenly in his informative discourse? 1 think .we know why. He does not find much fault with Mr Coates's -declaration that the costs or production must be reduced but lie wants to know how it is to be done. He is making a request no responsible leader of any Party would seriously consider when he asks Mr Coates to detail his scheme for bringing about such reduction. Mr Holland would not. do ft. Mr Forbes, the Leader of .the United Party, to which the Labour Party has played the part of faithful .ally .since 1926, would not do it, and Mr Coates has nothing to learn from of them in the mat-; ter of political generalship. Again. Mr Howard, criticising Mr Coates's suggestion that a policy of derating must be adopted to ease tho burden of roading costs to the farmer, makes one think- that , he is "willing to wound,, but yet afraid to -strike." He does not damn the proposal, though one can sense that he would fain do so because it comes from the -Be form side. It is the same in ; regard to Mr Howard's criticism of Mr Coates 5 s proposal that the railways should be removed from political control. His remarks about the questiori are too involved for most people to trouble about, and he ends on the .puerile- note —"Why didn't Reform ■ think, of that before tliey left-office?" . No.Government-lias ever yet been able to do a/11 it desired, first things-come first, and-had the Reform Government ■Wen returned at last election the chances are the railways would to-day have been quite.free from the political corvtrol Mr Coates has in mind. As - for'Mr Coates's statement that- "the expenditure. of borrowed money on -railway construction must cease in all cases • wherei it cannot be shown that the ..new line, when completed, -will be economically sound; that is. a propbsi--tion which every business man must oppose, Its common sense is . evident to the most" ordinary- intelligence. Yet th§ disgruntled Mr Howard, failing to find any cogent, .argument against it, flies off at a tangent to assail the Reform Party for its proposal to construct the 'Tnupo' railway. Suppose, for argument's sake, tliat'wr* a blunder. must' the Reform Party lienceforth and: forever, refrain from criticising wild-cat railwav .st-homes ? -Mr Howard is surely losing his sense of hilmour. ' •

TJien Mr C'oates urges that the rate or wages to single men for relief works maßt'bc-lpfffr than the standard rate. Air Howard professes his inability to see how, this can be done. That it can be done no worker . has any, doubt at all. He writes- as if all relief "works w-ere carried out on the contract sysTf A relief works are not. Mr ©crates, tjiat national defence must be based on national ser-

rice. Mr HowSrd professes his inability to understand; but there is one thing the public do understand, and that is that they need never look to the Labour Party to make any provision for national defence. And, finally, Mr Howard, with virtuous indignation, repudiates the idea that the Government's legislation has been formed to suit the Labour Party, which has kept the United Party in office. He says the dividing line between Reform and TJniteds is about as wide as a postage stamp is thick. In other words there is no difference between the two Parties—they are equally bad. If that be so, 1 ask Mr Howard why he and his Party have steadily olid consistently kept this rotten Party in office. If either the Reform or the "United Party is half as bad as Mr Howard says, no self-respect-ing Party in opposition to them can do other than vote them out. Why has not Labour done this? We know —but; we know also that the Labour Party will never admit the truth about it.—-Tours, etc., JOHN STRAIGHT. November 26th, 1939.