LABOUR POLICY

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22388, 29 April 1938, Page 15

LABOUR POLICY

TO TBB BOITOB OF THB PEBBS* Sir, —My quondam friend, Mr E. E. Langley, cannot understand why I want the so-called Labour represents - lives of the present day to explain what they mean by the socialisation of the means of production, distribution. and exchange.”. It was glaringly obvious ■at the recent annual conference of the party that the "objective is not to be paraded unduly, but that “after” the General Election steps will be taken to enlighten the rank and file. Aye, after, we know their little game by now; it is to pose as Liberals for electioneering purposes. It is this hypocrisy which is so nauseating to men of principle. Why are Labour candidates so reluctant to explain the party’s “objective’? If it is going to lead to Utopia and is such a boon to humanity, surely those who are pledged to it should not become rude when asked to bring it into the limelight so that we can all . see its beauties. I suggest to our friend Mr Langley that he should enlist the assistance of the Hon. P. C. Webb. Minister for Mines, who is a mine-owner, in his endeavour to elucidate this mystery of the meaning of the objeclive.” How does Mr Webb intend to apply the principle in socialising the mines of the Dominion? Coming nearer home, just imagine the Labour members of the Christchurch Tramway Board socialising the trams. Socialisation in this instance might fittingly be explained by Mr George Manning, a member of the board. He is also the secretary of the Workers’ Educational Association, engaged m the work of adult education; therefore education on the lines suggested should be well within his scope. Mr Langley’s personal attack on me is perhaps to his liking, but his memory is faulty. He may be an artist, and a good hand with the brush, but when he takes the pen he should endeavour to be sure of his facts. However, it is the fate of the Labour Party that is soon to be m the balance and it is because I want the advocates of the Labour policy to explain it that they a* so savage. Mr Langley cannot tell us what The socialisation of the means of production. distribution, and exchange’ means, and I challenge any one of the local Labour aspirants to give us a igeosibte deflnitiotij perhaps Mr JLang'j

ley will agree that every worker should understand clearly just what the party does stand for. I have always been against exploitation of the people, and I am now opposed to the exploitation of the working class by a lot of politicians working on expediency for party purposes.—Yours, etc., HIRAM HUNTER. April 28, 1938.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. Sir, —I take no active part in politics, but am much interested passively. I have read Mr Hiram Hunter’s letters to your paper, and have considered them to state his views clearly and well. Mr Hunter is entitled to change His views, and it is to his credit that he has shown so much moral courage in this. Personally, I think he speaks with ripe judgment, and Mr E. E. Langley is at fault in his sour and unstable criticism.—Yours, etc., ORDINARY MAN. April 28. 1938.