NOTES OF THE DAY.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1635, 31 December 1912, Page 4

NOTES OF THE DAY.

The Christchurch organ of the reactionaries who wish-back again the days of "Spoils" politics is very indignant over our recent note upon the difficulties into whjch the Weir lington and Christchurch tramway systems have landed themselves. We imagined that we had here some evidence in support of the general experience that municipal enterprise is not naturally particularly profitable, but .our contemporary urges us to read the Municipal Yetir Book for 1912 as proof of the excellence of municipal tramway enterprises in Britain. We know the Tear Book, as everyone does, but the Christ-' church paper apparently does not know that, excellent and informative as it is in pome respects, this annual is issued as an defence of municipal trading from a strongly biaseel Radical source. ' We prefer other authorities,, In tho Financial Review of Reviews for August, 1911, for example, there is an exhaustive article on municipal tramway finance. It was pointed out in the Government Report for the year ended March 31, 1910, that no fewer than 29 local authorities, had to seek aid from the rates to meet tramway deficiencies, And many of the others avoided this course only by failing to make any provision, or adequate provision, for depreciar tion'. For all the systems the reserve amounted to only per cent, It is generally admitted that in Britain 5 per cent, is a proper and fair amount for depreciation and sinking fund, but only Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool are run on sound lines. The vast majority of the systems, it was pointed out, are really insolvent, and appear otherwise only through "a lax system of municipal accounting." The southern paper quotes the eaeo of London, Glasgow is the model system, and it provides!

8 per cent, for sinking fund and depreciation. But if London set aside only 5 per' cent., it would show a heavy loss. We think we have given the figures before, but they will bear repeating: . Actual sinking / Capital fund 5 per ■ ex- arid cent, on Defipenditure. reserve capital cieney. £££ £ - 1905-6 ... 3,098,408 109,M8 154,920 50,512 1906-7 ... 3,014,847 126,401 180,742 54,841: 1907-8 ... 6,940,310 161,520 347,315 185,795; 1208-9 ... 8,414,591 261,609 420,729 159,120. 1909-10 ...10,709,501 486,007 .535,475 49,307 ' Of course our only desire is that prudence and economy shall be .en-; couraged in our city undertakings, ■ and prudence and economy capnot be. forwarded by minimising the dangers that attend municipal enterprise. The recent renewal of insane rnili- ; tancy amongst the ;Suffragettes has; not even the excuse that feeling in favour of woman's suffrage is/grow-' ing in Great Britain. .'lndeed, the 1 ' contrary is the case. It will .be remembered that during November' Mk. iGeorge Lansbury, the Socialist' member for Bow and Bromley, whose; chief claim to public notice had been: his loose tongue and offensive man- , ners, resigned his seat to fight it on: the_ Suffragist platform. When .the mail that arrived last Pight left: London the campaign for the. seat . was in progress, and Mb. Lansbuky and the _ Suffragettes ,and .the Radicals anticipated an easy win—relying, no : dpubt, on the fact that Ma. ' Lansbuky had won. the seat by over 800 yotes from Me. Amery at the last : election, Mb. Lansbury was perfect-' ly .certain that .he would win '".with; a big, thumping majority," Yotes: for Women was lyrical: The Suffragist election.!' That is vth.e : name by which it will go .down to political posterity. Aiid no "one visiting Bow and Bromley this week could find a better name for the contest now raging there, unless it .be, as- one Liberal paper ha 6 suggested, "The Lansbury Election." Laris-. ibury and f;otes for Womenl-.that is the; mot,to ,of tho -very modern St. .George of Bojf who is .but fighting for women's free- ; t doin in .one cf the pcorest districts of tho richest, oountry in the world. ' It is vaift. ■for the enemy -to pretend that an' election .cannot be fought ,on .a single issue. I Go down ,to Bow and see,! ' ; A Unionist candidate was being talk- i ed about, and the Radicals laughed at th : e .idea of him. The Daily News '■ said, for example: In the meantime there is talk, at least,' of a Tory candidate. He is said.to be 'Mr.' Reginald Blair. Ho has just issued an ; election address, and on; the strength of that, one may assume he'ib busy. On my pointing out this evidence of,opposition to Mr. Banks, the - Labour candidate's agent, he admitted indifferently .that it', looked like a Tory address, and passed on. ; Mr. Banks does not flatter the .Opposition ; by ,even pretending to be aware ,of its ex- : istence. "All I want," .he remarked, wiping his ;brow, "is the .entire .conversion ■ of' the whole .division to George IXms- ■ bury." ' i . Working for Mn. Lansbury on' the 1 platform was an army of prominent Mr.. Josiah Wedgwood, M.P., the Rev. Silvester- Horse, ; M.P., Mr. .L. A. Atherley Jones, ' ; M.P., Mr. Keir HAbdie, M.P., Mr. ' I Philip Snowden, M.P.,-Mr. H.' D., ! Haebsn, Sir Victok Horsley, Mr. , G. K; Chesterton, Mb.,Hilaike Bel-: ! top..And the electors, as ..arable mes-; sage informed us, quietly elected the • Unionist by over 7,00 of a majority, ; ; No doubt, in the. next iew days .the • Gpyorniheht people and'the Sufftag-'. :. ists were busily blaming each other ! for the defeat.

Mb. FrederiO Harrison',s "sensa-.. fcional article" on England's peril, does not. so far as the summary .of • it sent oy cable shows, break any ; new-ground. .He. certainly is a little ; more alarmist in some respects #anothers who have .been writing in, the : 1 same strain, and his proposals for ; ensuring the safety .of the Mother- : land are on a grander scale than we have been accustomed to. As a mat. ter of fact, Mr. Harrison probably, . is better able to form an : opinion; as to the possibilities of trouble , with' : Germany than he is xjua'lified to offer; advice on the question of meeting : : that trouble if it should :occur. He. advocates, we are told, a £160,000,000 • . war loan, &100,000,000 of which 'should be- forthwith spent on the; Navy and £50,000,000 on the Army, i | It would surely be the height of unwisdom to spend so huge a sum as is proposed on the Navy, It would certainly ensure that two or three years. hence—providing Germany did not follow our example—Britain ! would completely- overshadow Ger- ■ many, and any conceivable alliance. she might make so far as naval . strength is concerned, but vessels of war are shortlived, 'and have an unhappy knack of getting out of date, To spend so huge an amount practically in one sum would be a very short-sighted policy, However well the hurried building of such a monster addition to the fleet a.s_ is suggested might safeguard the ate future, such a step would , be liable to create serious, embarrass-; ments a few years hence, as the yes- : sels began to get out of date, and a fresh demand arose for a further huge expenditure. _ The point is that we .should be providing for a time a ; greater fleet than was,actually nece.s- , sary, with all the additional attendant cost' of upkeep, as well as capital expenditure, and by-so doing crippling our resources for future requirements. This surely would be foolish tactically, There is a real 'danger in over-doing the thing, just, as there is in neglecting _ to make ample provision for national defence. That it is necessary that the British Navy should be materially strengthened appears clear, but it is •not necessary or even desirable that the question should be approached in the panicky fashion indicated by the summary of Mr. Harrison's article.