Manawatu Herald THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1922. CHIMERICAL MR McCOMBS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 2474, 31 August 1922, Page 2

Manawatu Herald THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 1922. CHIMERICAL MR McCOMBS.

MR McCOMBS, Bn hour M.U. for Lyttelton, had a night out in Foxton on Monday'and dealt at length with sonic of the Labour Party’s planks. Following on Mr Holland’s speech the Labour candidate will not have much ground to break when lie takes the platform. The greater part of Mr McCombs speech was taken up with the question of proportional representation, which, by the way, was the undoing of the Labour Parly in New South Wales some little time back. Mr McCombs gave a more lucid .and detailed exposition of this proposal than did his leader, Mr Holland, from the same platform. The subject, however, is time-worn as the late Mr liobt. McXab pul in. a whole evening locally on the subject some years ago. With Mr McCombs and several other visionaries, proportional representation is an obcession. In theory it sounds alright, but its application to practical politics would lead t<_» confusion jiiic.l <five le.s.s j-tatsfjxe-lion than the present method. Party lines are well defined and an enlightened democracy such as wo have in the- dominion can he trusted to make a wise select ion in the return of its representatives without doing serious wrong to the “sovereign right” of the people. The chimerical Mr McCombs had something to say of confiscation in regard to the sale of war bonds free «*i' income tax and the hut tor tax levy. These in comparison with the objective of the Labour Parly arc insignificant. "Confiscation-" means seizure by way of forfeit. Mr McCombs indignantly denies that his parly supports any such seizure of private property as is suggested in this word. Mr Holland says the charge "is a foolish lie.” We confess our suspicion of Mr Holland's mood of indignation as we have seen it used so often as a cover. If has to be noted that lie /.d not attempt to deal with the searching query—if socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange does not involve confiscation bow is it. to be brought about? That is the question which Mr McCombs' party is catted on to answer. "Socialisation of the means of production” etc., clearly implies the substitution of public or collective ownership for private or individual ownership. Taking over of such properly by means of compensation would still- leave the private owners in possession of wealth which could again be used towards production, distribution and exchange, . so that the question still stands of how this revolution can be effected without- resort to confiscation. To find exactly what, the Red Party means by “socialisation” we must, consider its proposal not in the abstract form but as applied to some definite and practical issue. Take the land plank of the party — clause 3 reads: —(a) A State valuation of all privately-owned land, ■such valuation to remain on record as the measure of present landholder's interest in land. (h) That privately owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State. (o) The owner shall have the right to surrender his land on the valuation set out in sub-clause (a). Can these terms mean anything else than that the State shall: interest in the land held by him. (2) Abrogate his right of disposition, except to lhe State. (3) Restrict his power of: sale to the one purchaser, namely the State which has determined the price. If such interpret at ion is correct then it would appear that this platform does advocate "confiscation” unless a meaning can be found for the word other than is commonly accepted, as the forfiture of the private owner’s right, of free disposition of bis property is clearly contemplated.