THE FARMERS’ FRIEND

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22464, 27 July 1938, Page 17

THE FARMERS’ FRIEND

TO THE EDITOR OF THE PRESS. gj r _Kindl.y permit me to thank O'. W. Dell and Robertson for the courteous tone of their replies to me, which I will try to reciprocate. It is significant that the most vital issue, stressed so strongly in my letter, the control of production, has been ignored by your correspondents. It is worthy of note that Labour supporters are reluctant to discuss that plank of their platform, preferring to keep it in the background, in spite of the fact that the whole of their economic and political future is based upon it. G, W. Dell says there is nothing in the Government’s platform to support any supposition that they will interfere with the farmers, and asks for facts. Fact (1) that the control of production is a P art of their P° lic y: <2) that they have already assumed control of part of the farm production (dairy produce, honey, etc.); (3) and that the most practical way by which they can «ive effect to their policy is by the way I have indicated. If there is any other way, will your correspondents enlighten us? If not, then in what other state than that of “abject serfdom” will the farmers find themS6 *lndirectly. your correspondents claim credit for the improved price of dairy produce on the London market on behalf of the present Government. Is it merely a coincidence that both correspondents refer to the average price over a period of 22 years, 1914 to 1935. That period included a lime when our butter was sold as low as 07s a hundredweight. The improved price is not a result of anything the Government has done, but to the housing and armament works in England, and is therefore not a fair comparison. Moreover, why should we be governedby the slump period in these, which are claimed by the Government to be •’prosperous” times? It is not quite clear what G. W. Dell means when he says that certain percentages (presumably in the past) have gone in manufacturing, transport, marketing, etc. Does he suggest that someone, other than the farmer, is paying those costs to-day? It so, then the farmers have reason to be grateful for such an act of benevolence. A perusal of Hansard will show that before the present Govecnmeht took office, steps were being taken with the object of reorganising the marketing of our produce, and to reduce costs.

In reply to my contention that the whole of the £925,000 held by the Government belongs to the farmers, D. Robertson says it will be turned over to the farmers when necessary to M tmrT N welfare.” Who is to be the judge as xa when it is necessary—the farmers or a Ministerial despot? The farmers are not children and strongly object to being treated as- such. Probably D. Robertson did not intend to suggest that I am a speculator, and to remove any doubt, permit me to say that I am one of the original shareholders in a butter factory, and have been a supplier for 25 years. Again, I would remind the farmers of the momentous issue at stake at the next election. Are they to control their own destiny, or are others to control it for them?— Yours, etc., ' R. B. DALLEY. July 26, 1938.