THE ELECTIONS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22520, 30 September 1938, Page 9

THE ELECTIONS

TO TH» COITOE Or.THB PRBBB. Sir—There is a lot of jabber by the Nationalist faction about Socialism. If there is a system that has outlived its usefulness it is private enterprise, a relic of mediaevalism and the dark ages. What could be more corrupting? Ita morality is socially degrading, infecting young and old; it will not stand Clean investigation. It is the basis of a crude anti-Christian exploiting system. What of co-operation? Here we have a movement that would counter the cost of living, regulate profits, and prevent the big wad going into individuals' pockets. The one-eyed exploiter could be controlled and opportunity increased, with scientific distribution. One could go on writing about what its adoption has done for other nations, and this is the policy the Labour Party intends to develop in this Dominion. —Yours, etc., george Mccormick. Belfast, September 28. 1938.

TO THB EPITOB Or T« PUSS Sir, —Your issue for Saturday is most informative and in places highly amusing. Under the caption, "The Real Issue." we find the Leader of the Opposition speaking about camouflage, and saying that the real issue is private enterprise versus Socialism. Is he not aware that he is at present parading the country as the leader of a camouflage political party, and that the real issue is prosperity, happiness, and security versus depression, misery, and insecurity? If he is not aware of it now he will soon realise it on October 15 next. u , „ I desire now to traverse the letter "Abuse of Power," appearing over the signature of C. Roy Harris. His letter is a gem—a phantasmagoria erected upon an illogical pedestal. Yet out of his flowers of fancy some hard cold facts can be gathered. C. Roy Harris writes: "The abuse of power is the greatest political crime for a government," etc., etc., and ends the paragraph with a correct quotation by Abraham Lincoln. I thoroughly agree with him concerning the abuse of power, for it was the abuse of power by Messrs Hamilton. Forbes, and CcnUis. oc as Mr Poison aptly put it,,

"the same old gang," that wrecked our constitutional Parliamentary practice by extending without authority the life of Parliament to four years, that smashed the Arbitration Court, that reduced old age, widows', and orphans' pensions, starved the mothers and babies to pay the British bondholder, etc. Abraham Lincoln also said:

I "Fill the factories, and your farms I will automatically fill themselves." It [ was the same old gang,* assisted by i middle men and financial interj ests. who so froze capital as to prevent factories from becoming filled. Yet these same agents contrived to fill the farm with heavy mortgages, which drove many farmers off their land. Your correspondent rambles on in his letter to write of the "unfenced fields of economic ignorance," following this up with the reference that the maintaining of purchasing is "fiddlesticks." It is said that Nero fiddled whilst Rome burned, but the people of New Zealand are painfully aware that the "same old gang" fiddled with the purchasing power, while people starved, and farmers were being driven off their land. "Uncle Scrim" proved quite recently that he is quite capable of defending himself, but if any defence for him is ever required to prevent him from being driven out of the broadcasting service by any interestedagencies. C. Roy Harris and his financial clique will find the majority of the people of this anti-Fascist country ready and willing to give Uncle Scrim that defence. Shakespeare wrote: "Evil on itself doth back recoil, and mix no more with justice," and I would offer this to C. Roy Harris as a text for his next letter.—Yours, etc., J. HILL. I Micks Creek. September 27, 1938.

Extracts from other letters on the subject read as follows: "Stung."—Mr Savage, in his address in the Barracks on Tuesday night, is reported as stating that shops would not be socialised if the Labour Party is returned. Perhaps they will not, in the sense that individual shopkeepers will become State employees. But as inferentially in this very statement the Prime Minister admits that the object of his party is the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, it follows that every shopkeeper will sell only what he is permitted to sell and'only then at prices which are fixed by authority. A shopkeeper could not extend his business without a permit nor could he change the location of his shop. The Labour Government has already passed legislation »giving it authority to exercise these powers by regulation. Mr Savage is a past master at making statements of his intentions which sound harmless enough until the necessary implications are understood.

"1.L.P."—1 used to be one of the soap-box orators of years ago—to be precise, 1885 —when the I.L.P. (Independent Labour Party) was striking out for the "cause" of Labour. Our name was soon changed by the Liberals and Tories of that time because our principles of "one man one job" did not suit, so we were termed the "Independent Lazy Party." because we objected to one man doing two jobs. Who were the leaders of the 1.L.P.? Some of the old timers will remember Keir Hardie, Bob Blfftchford, John Burns, Tom Mann, and Philip Snowden. What consternation when Keir Hardie became an M.P., as also did John Burns and Philip Snowden. The opponents in those days were very liberal with eggs, oranges, tomatoes (all ancient). I maintain that not one of those men would sit on the same platform as the Labour Party of today. Unfortunately Honest John Burns slipped, got a job as President of the Board of Trade with the Liberals at £2OOO a year, and thus started the present Labour Party of self Labour and not for the cause of Labour. Sit and look round at the many Labour men in Christchurch who hold several jobs. The action of our present Mayor who only recently gave up two secretarial jobs, if followed by one or two more of his councillors would make some poor devil happy. Oh, but the other side of Labour does it! Damn the other side—let us work for the cause of Labour and show the "other side right from wrong, and show them we are not all for self.

"Listening Elector." —Broadcasting has its values. When Mr Bodkin spoke in the Dunedin Town Hall on Wednesday night it was obvious from the outset that an organised effort was being made to prevent his speech being heard, and this continued through m; address. It was not a matter of sporadic interjections or of enthusiastic individuals trying to disconcert the speaker, but of a body working together to drown the solitary Nationalist representative. The radio made the whole scene clear, including the speaktriumph. And all the while Mr Bodkin's voice could be heard over the air above the tumult.- His evidence ot the Labour Party's intent to introduc* the Socialist State, consisting in the main of documents from the Labour Party, and his puncturing of the social security bubble could not be overwhelmed by the noisy opposition. Mr Bodkin made the point that clearly the friends $f Socialism wished to suppress free speech, offering in contrast the attitude of the National Party supporters, who save the Labour Party candidates a. fair run. In Mr Bodkin's case there was no question of a report from an undisclosed source of the prospect of rowdyism; the Labour Party supporters supplied proof and the radio distributed the proof.

"Nemo."—lf there is one claim made by Labour Party orators, which is more nauseating than others, it is the claim that the Labour Party is inspired by nobler motives and a higher ethical standard than the Nationalist Party. It has made this claim so blatantly and frequently that even some who are opposed to the Socialist breed are inclined to believe it. I listened the other night to a leading Socialist orator expounding over the air the Socialist programme, and incidentally denouncing his political opponents. During his denunciations he did not mince matters —he named names. The success that individual citizens have made of their business careers was held up to contempt and ridicule. His motive quite obviously was to incite envy and malice in the hearts and minds of the wage-earning section of his audience. I could not help thinking that envy and hatred were poor motives as a spiritual ideal, and that the earthly paradise he promised his hearers, if the Labour Party was returned to power, would not long provide abundant fruits unless his followers soon learned to practise at least one good old-fashioned maxim, "Thou shalt not covet." But is it likely that men who have been stirred to action by persistent appeals to the spirit of envy and the passion of hatred will suddenly change their whole moral attitude?

"Spotless."—lt is high time that the National Party rejected any ideas about being so free from anything that is "not done." For the last three years National speakers have been heckled and harassed by Labour hooliganism and now that these Labour supporters are getting some of their own medicine in return, they are squealing. Perhaps Mr Macfarlane heard some of Labour's effort at Mr Bodkin's meeting last night. How proud he must feel of them! Another of Mr Macfarlane's endeavours is to convince people that the National Party is trying to introduce a "fear complex." However, if we examine the facts, we find that the boot is on the other foot. Why all these references to the last depression? Why all these personal references? Surely it is the Labour Party that is using these matters' as political propaganda. •' \••:.'■',.'

"Nationalist. . -Working Man."—One would like MtiSemple to state the year in which the Southland Freezing Company. Ltd., paid that enormous dividend Mr Semple mentioned at Papanui. The company have no record of it. The dividend paid last year was 6 2-3 par oeat. This included the bonus.

Now about those companies which paid such an enormous sum in dividends. In face of the above mistake the names of those companies should be disclosed in order that such a startling statement can be checked up.

"A Farmer."—Talking of broken promises, consider how inevitably the National Party would break its unqualified double promise to restore the •'proper," the undefined "correct" balance between farm costs and prices without cutting "wages, salaries, and pensions." The promise to increase the subsidy on road rates would mean an insignificant reduction of farm costs. There is, of course, the fantastic possibility that the National Party might, without cutting wages, take social control of the city profits, which are another" large part of farm costs. Otherwise the National Party must infallibly choose between direct wage cutting and the same "disastrous inflation" that "The Press" described as the only alternative way of increasing the present guaranteed price for. dairy products. It would be impossible for the National Party to legislate for a substantial lowering of farm costs without cutting wages either directly or, by inflation, indirectly—and thus breaking a deceitful electioneering promise. And is not the National Party promise to pay a guaranteed minimum price to dairy farmers merely a slight variation of that process of socialising losses and individualising profits which has been consistently condemned by "The Press" j and is quite inconsistent with "private I enterprise"?

"Commonsense."—During this election campaign I have heard a lot from the National candidates about Socialism. Now, will one of the Nationalists tell me what it is and how it works and what country is a Socialist country? I have never heard any of the Labour Party say that they wished to turn New Zealand into a Socialist country. I know what capitalist, Conservative, United, Coalition, Reiorm, and National mean. They have meant misery, poverty, war, and starvation since England defeated Ireland and the English landlords took possession of the country and allowed the Irish just half of what they got off the place. If they made 21b of butter the landlord took one. Just about the time my father left for New Zealand there was the failure in potatoes and the Irish died of starvation in thousands. Although the English landlords took their land they never offered to help in any way. When the Conservative people came to New Zealand they took the land from the Maoris and gave them practically nothing for it. When the Maoris objected, the Conservatives took guns and shot them. If we put the Nationalists in we can expect something similar.

"Kaye Hoe." —You say in a leading article in "The Press": "The electors have to decide whether they want to become State servants or free citizens." Let us take the railway and transport staff. They are State servants. Are they not free citizens? Then take the Post and Telegraph Department. Are the staff of these State departments not free citizens? The same question can be asked of the State Forest and Public Works Departments. Also there are the members of the Legislative Council and the House of Representatives. Are they not free citizens? Taking a broad average, these State servants, in my opinion, get a better and more reliable deal.