THE LABOUR PARTY.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20251, 1 June 1931, Page 15

THE LABOUR PARTY.

JO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —I loft Mr H. E. Holland's mooting on I'rklay with feelings fairly enough expressed by the old sardonic saying, "The mountain was in labour and brought forth a mouse." I liad gone in expectation, I came away in. disappointment. Mr Holland has not been heard in Christchurch since the present economic and industrial crisis assumed its acute and menacing aspect. Since Parliament rose last year he has in the cjuietudo of the west been able to look forth upon the turmoil and cogitate statesmanlike methods for dealing with the vast, many-sided problem. It was natural, therefore, that I should expect to hear from him an analysis of the problem from a new angle, and some suggested new solution or solutions for pulling the country out of the quagmire. But, as I have said, I was utterly disappointed, and as I listened I realised that once again we were having "cauld kail hot again" dished out to us, and were asked to accept it as statesmanship. I do not intend to traverse Mr Holland's speech throughout. It is not worth it, and it will be fair enough to offer the comments of an ordinarily intelligent member of the audience on the impressions that remain from the meeting.

Naturally, playing the political game and angling for votes, Mr Holland devoted a very great part of his address to the subject of unemployment and the reduction in the salaries and wages of public servants and other workers. Mr Holland and his Party are set dead against theso reductions—yet I do not think there is a single sensible man in New Zealand who will object to the restoration of the higher salary and wage standard if Mr Holland or any other can show how it can be done in face of the slump in our export market and the national depression that follows therefrom. It would be quite assensible to argue- that any great business establishment, whose turnover had decreased in a single year by. tens of thousands of pounds, should still keep its full staff at full wages, lest their dismissal add to the numbers of unemployed, and their vanished wages were no longer available for distribution among the other shops where they purchased their necessities. On this point Mr Holland's statesmanship follows]tho illusory course which would teach, lis to be a thriving, prosperous, and happy nation b}' taking in each other's washing. Here I may be pardoned a brief "aside," which is not wholly irrelevant. On the platform with Mr Holland were liis henchmen, Mr D. G. Sullivan and Mr McCombs, gentlemen who are going (if they can) to restore the old rate of wages for City Council employees, and are going to borrow £35,000 for that purpose—or that will be at least one of the purposes of tho loan. Now, it would be sensible to remember that these gentlemen are vociferous in declaring that interest charges are a far greater burden than wages. They call for a reduction of interest rates, but are they likely to make it easier for the owners of property if they borrow this sum and pile tho extra charges on to him? I was not at all concerned -With Mr Holland's denunciatory criticism of the .Reform and United Parties. Indeed, I enjoyed it, and listened' to the flagellation of the ridiculous United Party with relish. In his address Mr Holland let out that for a time some pact prevailed between the Government Party and his. Ho would not tell us all about it, for some of tho conversations or negotiations were private. Here wo have another example of Labour's playing with principles. It denounces secret diplomacy and secret treaties in international affairs. It practises secret diplomacy and enters into secret treaties , in Parliament.

I waited to hear how Mr Holland proposed to readjust our national affairs so that a restoration of the old wage standard would he economically possible—but I waited in, vain. When it came to that he was like Oanm&g's "Needy Knife-Grinder." "Story 1 (Sod bloss you! I hare none to tell, sir." So far as 1 could learn or understand—and I do not wish to misrepresent Mr Holland—his remedies for unemployment are remedies upon which all Parties are agreed They are not the product of any Party or any statesman in New Zealand. Most, if not all of them, have been; borrowed from England. They are not new nor do they promise mncli in the Way of restoring prosperity. They will help, yet one feels despairingly that Mr Holland's remedies are emergency and opportunist nostrums that never get to the root of the trouble. Hte would set the unemployed ©n to Crown lands ,and have them engaged in developmental work. He would start a great road-making scheme, and he would encourage and help our secondary i industries. Those, as far as I recall, are the Labour Party's main remedies for unemployment. Mr Ramsay Mac Donald has tried these remedies ,in England, but they have tiot solved the unemployment problem there. Nor "will they solve it here, and I think Mr Holland and his confreres recognise that, for they conr centrate, •as far as r they can, the attention of the workers on the promise that Labour will increase wages .to the old standard. "If the public servants and the wage-earners wanted even further reductions'in their salaries they liad only to vote for Mr Forbes or Mr Cootes/' declared Mr Holland. Perhaps it is because I am inexpert in exact terminology that I call that an offer of a bribe to tue, wage-earners. The ajjpeal in it is not to reason, but to cupidity.—Yours; etC '' v JOHN STRAIGHT. May 30th, 1931.

TO THE SBITOE OJ TBF. PBSHS. Sir,—T went to Mr Holland'b lecture last night, expecting to learn how the Labour Party is going to lift ns but of this economic entanglement if they got on to the Treasury Ber -hen. I must say I came away quite disappointed. From start to finish the. a3dress was practically nothing but one long diatribe against the United and . Beform Parties. Now, Mr Holland knows there is no way out of this commercial maze, unless we adopt some form of Socialism. I cannot understand why the word Socialism frightens so many people; it's got to conic. Economic forces will push it on to us whether we want it or not. It's j only a natural growth of society. If we j fojlow the history of the humhn family j wc will fiud that economic forces push-1 ed us from savagedom to slavcdom, then to serfdom, then to ■vvagedom (Capitalism). The next step is Socialism or , freedom. j Machinery arid yet more machinery is being .brought into use for production, and displacing labour at such a rate that anyone with one eye must see that we have got to alter our methods or go under. Capitalism is the best sys- , tem wo hava had,, and it has just abouk

outlived its usefulness. But that is not to say it's the best system we can have. —Tours, etc., D. ELLWOOD. May 30th, 1931.