MR LEE “DISCIPLINED”

Waikato Times, Volume 125, Issue 20995, 23 December 1939, Page 6

MR LEE “DISCIPLINED”

“Disciplining” Mr J l . A. Lee by dismissing him from the position of Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the Government has taken a step that may have interesting repercussions. It is, of course, well known that this is only another step in a long series of skirmishes between the Labour Party and what has been described as its Left Wing. For the sake of maintaining at least an impression of unity the Government has long delayed drastic action, but now relations have apparently become so strained that in its own defence the Government felt compelled to enforce discipline. According to Mr Lee, he refused to resign his post and “preferred being sunk to scuttling the ship.” An indication of the width of the breach is contained in the fact that Mr Lee “expected his resignation to be asked for.” Whether the dismissal of Mr Lee alone will heal the breach is the question the public will naturally ask. Large numbers of members of the Labour Party, inside the House and in the electorate, are known to subscribe heartily to the doctrines of Mr Lee. It is even alleged that at one famous caucus Mr Lee actually commanded a majority—until the issue was made a matter of deserting the Prime Minister, when to save the wrecking of the party there was a substantial swing of votes to record confidence in Mr Savage. There followed the “Lee Letter,” which succeeded in causing grave anxiety in the “loyal” ranks of the party and maintaining the breach. Since then Mr Lee has continued to write and to speak in a manner that has moved the parly leaders to drastic action. It seems probable that the final straw was an article written in a southern periodical in which Mr Lee made references to the effect on political parties of the illnesses of Prime Ministers. The “Lee Letter” was notable for the attacks its author made upon the Minister of Finance, the Hon. W. Nash. It will be noted that the Gazette notice depriving Mr Lee of his office is signed by Mr Nash. It is, in fact, mostly on financial policy that Mr Lee and his supporters have clashed with the Government leaders. He was utterly opposed to any increase in interest rates, and was hopeful that the Government would avoid piling up the national debt by resort to “debt-free” money. His recent speeches declaring the impossibility of maintaining the ever-increasing burden of national debt caused a great deal of controversy throughout the country. In his reply to the Government order Mr Lee makes the rather surprising statement : “I am proud I have been associated with the creation of the house-building scheme with debt-free money.” New Zealand will be delighted to know that it has incurred no liability in the construction of thousands of State houses, and will await with interest the Government’s explanation how this remarkable feat has been performed. It had been under the impression all along that the State houses were at least a contingent liability. If Mr Lee has discovered the secret of debt-free loans it is a thousand pities that he has been so disrated. Even if the Government does not appreciate the value of his services, he should be in tremendous demand in private life. It is certain that the Government’s action will be the signal for a renewal of the controversy on monetary policy.