THE LABOUR POLICY

Hokitika Guardian, 25 October 1928, Page 7

THE LABOUR POLICY

(Otago Daily Times.)

The Labour Party's election manifesto is dull and uninspiring. It is lacking in even a single good round adjectival denunciation of the existing order of thing. It would be curious, of course, if the party did less than conlidently challenge a comparison of its policy with the policies of the other political parties. But it makes little outward profession of either vision or imagination. It is really the Labour Party which, with platitudes and generalisations,‘speaks with so subdued a voice, and improvises tediously in this minor key? There is a fable in ~Esop that might seem to he applicable in the circumstances. Obviously the policy set before the electors in this manifesto is no more than a transparent figment, and'by no means an adequate reflection of the real policy of the Labour Party. Labour leaders have in the past contrived to educate the public to understand them better than to imagine that all this soft pedalling is indicative of a real change of outlook and of heart. The party , which cabled its condolences to Russia on the death of M. Lenin may be difficult to recognise in the party that propounds so tame a policy as is now being placed before the electors. But the explanation, of this is not very far to seek. The voice of the Labour Party is tempted by the dictates of expediency for the time (being. Even Labour can see virtue on occasion in the motto, “Festina lente Tt is necessary to look behind the policy of expediency that is now proclaiming and to consider its doctrines in order to ascertain the real policy of the Labour Party. That policy is summed up in the objective, “The socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” Concerning the precise meaning of the term 'there may he differences of opinion. Undoubtedly, however, it implies common ownership—that is to say, State ownership. And State ownership plainly connotes the abolition of private ownership. The Labour Party, judged by its election manifesto, lacks the courage to nut in the forefront of its policy that objective the attainment of • which would involve the creation of State monopolies in hanking, insurance, shipping, transport and other services and the extinction of private interest in the ownership of land and all the appurtenances of land. It lias discovered that, like a ship under sail ,it cannot steer right into the eye of the wind. So it is prepared to fall so many points off its direct course iu order to keep moving. The great majority of the electors of the Dominion are sufficiently discriminating to undertsand the tactics. In -a spirit of hope, however, the party’s policy of expediency is carefully drafted to appeal, to the popular mind. It furnishes an example of discreet canniness in the non-committal nature of pronouncements on various points. The Labour Party is not prepared to choose between F'reetrado ancl Protection. It would reorganise the defence system of the Dominion, but except that it would abolish what it calls “boy conscription,” it does not indicate what* form or direction the reorganisation would take. The party would investigate the transport systems of the Dominion, and would “organise employment.” It would restrict public borrowing to the minimum consistent with the natural progress and development of the Dominion, this, as it happens/ being a feature of the programme of the Reform (Party also. The Labour Party is venturesome enough, however, to propose largely to increase the payments entailed in the maintenance of what are called “social services” but it offers no suggestion as to whence the necessary funds will be derived. Significantly, ther is only a general reference in the manifesto to the rather important matter of taxation. The Labour party would beneficently “place taxation where it creates no hardship,” hut it does not explain how this would be. done. It would increase taxation in the case of the large holdings. But, as the object of that would be to prevent land aggregation and break up large estates, it could not, if effectual, be productive of increased Revenue. Further search for inspiration in any of the Labour proposals will not be rewarded. The party programme enunciated is inchoate, vague, and unconvincing.