AN EFFORT AT DECEPTION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 3870, 13 November 1928, Page 3

AN EFFORT AT DECEPTION.

LABOUR PARTY’S TWO PROGRAMMES. THE TRICKERY EXPOSED. In the elections that take place to-morrow, the electors of New Zealand require to watch out and are not misled. Earlier ip Ifliis campaign we issued au article which was widely published throughout the Dominion. It was shown clearly that the Labour Party has two programmes and that these differ and conflict the one with the other. -

Their Election Manifesto (mainly liberal) is one; the official programme (truly socialist), is the other. The first of these the party’s candidates have been placing before the electors. The other, which is the party’s real programme, they have been hiding away as much as possible. Electors, and even agents of newspapers, who have applied for a copy of the Official Platform at the Head Office of the Party have been refused. Some have been, told “it is out of print and cannot be supplied.” At first some of this party’s candidates denied that there were two programmes. When it wajs found that would not go down the candidates, Mr. Barnard, Mr. R. Semple and others admitted that their party has two programmes, an Election one and a General Programme. The Party, through its candidates, now present the plea that the Election Programme is taken from the General Programme and is only what they intend to carry out in the three years if returned as the Government.

Such attempt at explanation is, however, but another attempt to deceive the electors. Is the first place the Election Manifesto is not wholly drawn from their Official Platform. It differs with that platform very materially and in parts is contradictory to the platform. In the second place neither Mr. Holland, Mr. iSemple or any of the candidates can guarantee that they will abide by any set programme for the three years as their platforms are subject to revision at the annual conference of the party, under provisions in its constitution.

Further, neither the leader or the party has given any assurance that they will confine themselves to what is in the Manifesto. Where the trick lies in thus using two programmes is that electors may, be induced to vote for them on their Liberal pronouncements. Then 'if returned to office they can put into force some of the socialist planks in their general platform and would claim that they had a mandate from the electors when actually the questions were never put before the electors. That is the trick which was played by Lang’s Labour Party Government in Australia. The question was raised that Mr. Lang had no mandate to abolish the Upper House as it had not been put before the electors. His answer was that' it was in the general platform of his party. Electors of New Zealand will surely recognise the palpable trickery that is thus involved in any party having two distinct platforms. LAND POLICY—ANOTHER DECEPTION. On the question of land policy Mr. H. E. Holland has stated that they have not changed their policy —that they still stand to the “uschold tenure” (which proved so disastrous to them in the election of 1925). Very well, let us take him and his party on this. The platform of 1925 reads: — “A land tenure' based on occupancy and use.” Again “that privately owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State.” ,That policy, which undoubtedly means Land Nationalisation and holding, not on any basis of private ownership but merely to use, is not the policy being put before the electors by the candidates of this party. Mr. Holland himself said “it was better to have twenty owners each with 1000 sheep than one family with 20,000 sheep.” That affirms extension, of private ownership, and we agree with it. It is, however, positively in conflict with the party’s declaration that “public ownership of land is the only ultimate remedy for the present chaos and muddle.” Mr. Clyde Carr, another of the candidates says:—“Nothing makes persons more contented than that they should have a little piece of land they can call their own.” Mr. Leo Martin says “he will oppose any interference with the freehold tenure.” Mr. Barnard, another candidate, says the same. Here is the glaring deception that whilst the party declares for public ownership, the candidates declare for private ownership. For land nationalisation on the one hand and the freehold on the other. Was ever such a shameless attempt made to mislead and deceive the body of electors as is being , carried out by this socialist party which is disgracing the name Labour. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League).