The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1930. A PIQUANT SQUABBLE

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 893, 10 February 1930, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET AUCKLAND MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1930. A PIQUANT SQUABBLE

WILL great statesmen, or ministers such as England, has known in the spacious past ever come again to lift British politics out' of the present slough of ineptitude? Mr. Hilaire Belloc thinks so, hut qualifies his belief (as expressed recently in a London journal) by adding- that “Great Ministers will come again only by way of the dictators.” If yon differ from him he offers a good arbiter, to wit, “any reasonably well-educated man, who shall happen to be living and observing the world in the year 2073*” Meanwhile, the people of today must be content with the politicians they have got and probably deserve. And if anyone were to judge even the best administrators by their record of service the verdict would be a depressing conclusion. All the political idols have feet of clay. This is shown in the piquant squabble between a former Prime Minister on the one side of Tory politics, and a millionaire owner of many newspapers on the other side of Conservatism. In polite language Viscount Rothermere has described Mr. Stanley Baldwin as a political donkey, while, no less polite, the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons has classified the late Lord Northeliffe’s brother as a former administrative dud. Of course, they did not use those opprobrious terms, but such epithets were in their minds. It may be left to the individual reader’s choice to determine which of the two is Balaam and which was more surprised. In any case, the journalistic politician, who would like to become Prime Minister, said that “Mr. Baldwin was a completely incompetent person, who, by an accident of post-war politics, had fluked his way into high office.” Although the Conservative party leader is the most amiable of the few gentlemen in politics, such criticism provoked him into something harsher than the retort courteous. He tore to tatters Viscount Rothermere’s reputation for efficiency and said that the noble lord had muddled his job as Air Minister in 1917-18, and resigned because an attack on his administration was pending. Many members of the Conservative Party are discontented with its present leader, but are confronted with an embarrassing difficulty as regards choosing a successor. It may be true that Mr. Baldwin has failed to prove himself a great statesman, but would the party or the kingdom be any better off under the political leadership of either Viscount Rothermere or that other newspaper millionaire, Lord Beaverbrook? Both have ambition, money, and a chain of newspapers to support their rival and similar policies. It does not necessarily follow, however, that self-made magnates or even a successor to a more powerful elder brother would or could become great statesmen simply because tlieir own newspapers acclaim them as master minds on every subject known and unknown of politicians. Each of the twin souls in respect of restoring Great Britain and the whole Empire, indeed, to prosperity, has a fiscal scheme guaranteed on paper to banish all of the Empire’s economic ills. In both schemes there are slogans to catch alike the traditional Freetrader and the timid Protectionist. And in order to convince waverers the long chains of newspapers are telling England, are telling the world, that Great Britain commercially, industrially and financially is going to the dogs. The country (screams the “Daily Mail”) leads the world, not in mass production, but in doles. In the midst of all the squabbling and brisk exchanges of political temper, it appears almost an amusing surprise that the Labour Prime Minister, who has no “stunts” with which to save the Empire, except the old-fashioned policy of hard work and efforts to secure peace at Home and abroad, is hailed as the strong man in a blatant land. Has not “The Times,” happily free of millionaire influence and direction, declared definitely that, although Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is technically the head of a minority Government, no Prime Minister was ever, for the time being, in a more impregnable position”? That is a complete answer to the squabblers whose policy changes with every moon. Labour is not only in office, but actually is doing exceptionally well, and much better than some of its predecessors. RECKLESS STATE ADVANCES IT is not surprising that the Government’s decision to curtail or discontinue State Advances loans has been followed by an admission that many over-valued properties are falling back on the hands of the department. The present trend of the property market in Auckland has had its inevitable effect and the State is suffering in common with other smaller, but equally imprudent owners. This, however, is little consolation to tax-payers who are now face to face with the fact that a. vaunted departmental system has been allowed to run to seed, necessitating vigorous and costly pruning. It is true that circumstances have been equally hard on private investors, but there is a big difference between the advancement of money within a reasonable proportion of a sane valuation, and the allowing of up to 95 per cent, on an admittedly inflated valuation. In the first case, the security provides for a reasonable recompense even in times of lowered values; in the second (the case of the State today) the security may dwindle to a fraction of the original outlay. The situation now, as indicated by the position in Auckland, warrants the application of remedies more beneficial than the merely negative one of halting State advances until, by the slow processes of civic evolution, the demand overtakes the supply. Scattered in the city and in every suburb are 100 houses which have fallen back into the hands of the Government. In a growing centre this in itself is not serious and may be accounted for partly by the increasing preference for flat life, which has helped to empty an estimated total of 1,400 houses in Auckland. But the financial position in which the department finds itself after an examination of these shrunken assets is a grave reflection on the methods that have been employed. There is no shadow of doubt that-the State Advances system has been allowed to extend far beyond the original intention of helping struggling workers to find homes. The Government, in effect, has become an unwise investor in city and suburban properties. conducting these investments with a recklessness that actually has been a contributing- cause to the present drop in values. For the past two or three years cheap money for State advances lias been followed by a gradually-slackening market, and the dangerously small margin between the Government’s loans and its security values seems to have been completely absorbed. It is unthinkable that Auckland is the only eitv in which the valuation balloon of the State Advances Department has been pricked. The property market is weak in every centre, and the Government’s securities must be affected to a corresponding degree. There is need, first, for a frank statement of the department’s entire position and, secondly, a policy of complete reorganisation with a reversion to a prudent loan system.