The Press Monday, March 16, 1925. The Socialists and Local Government.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18332, 16 March 1925, Page 8

The Press Monday, March 16, 1925. The Socialists and Local Government.

In a leaflet issued by the Labour Municipal Kepresentation Committee tho supporters of Socialism arc strongly urged to see to it that they are enrolled by the end of this month, when tho roll closes. It is declared that only 20 out of every 100 trade unionists are on the roll, and that at the last municipal elections "10,000 working men "and women who were entitled to vote "did not voto." One cannot easily believe that theso figures are correct, because Labour supporters are much keener on performing their duties as electors than anti-Socialists are. We cannot but commettd, however, tho Labour Committee's endeavour to securo that all the Labour voters shall enrol themselves; and we hope that the opponents of Socialism will take a lesson froih the Committee's work and do what they can to arouse the public to the danger of apathy and negleet. For the Socialist programme is the programme of a spendthrift. Most people know that one of the main problems of. local government is the curbing of expenditure, which has been rising continuously and which cannot be increased without placing heavy and unjust burdens upon those citizens whose pockets are the reserve of the city's governors. The Labour platform consists almost entirely of proposals for the spending of larger sums, and it contains no suggestion that the money needful for these sehemes will be obtained from any source except tho ratepayers' pockets. One of the planks is "the extension of "the policy of municipal trading enterprises, such enterprises to be operated "for service rather than profit." There' is no reason, from tho point of view of Labour-Socialist theory, why municipal enterprises should not bo run with an eye to profit, which the Socialists would easily find some means of distributing amongst the Socialist voters. But since they could not expect anyone to believe that municipal enterprises under Socialist management would not result in a loss, they make a virtue of mismanagement and call it "service." That municipal services run at a loss involve the taring of one section of the compiunity for the benefit of other sections, and therefore amount to robbery, has never appeared to tho Socialist to be an argument against his plans. On the contrary, this is a positive merit in his eyes, since he acts on the theory that to possess taxable property is to merit punishment. Another item in the Labour programme is the establishment of a children's cinema, and although this may appear to some people who have no Socialist leanings to be a harmless proposal, it is far from harmless, and would certainly, if admitted, be tho germ of a Municipal Cinema run for "service, not profit." The Socialists propose also that the Council should provide work for unemployed at the full award rates, without any regard, one assumes (for there are no qualifying words in this clause of tho platform), to the possibility that necessary and useful work can bo found. In addition to all this the Socialists aim at placing the employees of the local bodies in a position better than that of peoplo doing work of the same kind or the. same value in private employment. It has been difficult to understand tho readiness of so many workers to support tho Labour Party's demand for higher wages for the employees .of the State, for one would suppose that almost any worker would realise that the- cost of maintaining the State's employees in a privileged position would fall largely upon hita. In the same way he could not escape paying part of the cost of special privileges for the workers in the employ of local governing bodies. The Socialists have discovered, however, and aro seeking to exploit, tho gullible ignorant, who are, unfortunately, only too numerous. In the leaflet to which we have referred tho workers aro i urged to realise that the City Council ran initiate "industries and services "that will bo operated for the welfare "and the service of all tho people of '' the community, instead of for the pur"posb of swelling tho banking* accounts "of a few private folk who want to "grow rich at tho expense of others." Theso "few private folk," it is added, wish to keep these industries and services to bring "a snug revenue to their "private owners instead of to the eom"munity as a whole." The first-quoted of these passages implies that all private business is robbery, and thus involves a doctrine which is the negation of all civilised life. As for the "snug rovenue" wrested from private hands, "the community as a whole" would not'get a penny of it. It would not go to the community as a whole, but would be absorbed partly by ineflkicat mauascmeut and partly by the

army of privileged municipal employees which Socialism would create. Nobody but a fanatie would regard this ;is anything at all like an improvement.