GENERAL ELECTION

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25961, 15 November 1949, Page 7

GENERAL ELECTION

Sir—Mr R. M. Macfarlane, M.P., is reported as saying, “If we are to be tied up with the Communist Party, why have I a Communist opponent against me, and why is one standing against Mr McLagan?” The answer is obvious. It is simply a friendly arrangement between parties travelling in the same direction (Socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange), whereby the Communists only contest seats so strongly held by Labour that the few votes they take cannot possibly endanger a Labour seat, while the Communists have an opportunity to spread their propaganda. If it were* not so, we could expect to see Communists standing in marginal seats, such as, say, St Albans.—Yours, etc., OBSERVER. November ,14, 1949.

Sir, —Monopoly is an evil thing, State or otherwise. This is exemplified in the coalmining industry. The State has a virtual monopoly and the result is deplorable. Most of the filthy rubbish reaching householders should never have left the coalfields; and its cost is higher than that for the best coal should be. I do not blame merchants because I expect they, like everybody else, have to take it or leave it. Under free ermpetition, before the advent of Socialist controllers, we could get good screened coal at a reasonable price. There is one way, and only one, to get satisfactory service, and that is by healthy competition. Everything that the State controls, with few exceptions, is an expensive failure. The cost rises and the service dwindles. There are thousands of State controllers to-day and they would be better employed doing some useful work instead of hindering legitimate enterprise.— Yours, etc., HIRAM HUNTER. November 14, 1949.

Sir,—The National Party pamphlet. “A Family Affair,” shows costs in 1935 compared with 1949. We are led to believe they will reduce these costs without affecting anyone. As one man’s costs are another person’s income, how can this be done? Take a farmer relying on his butter, milk, potatoes, cereals, and meat. Has Mr Holland any arrangement with the farmer for a reduction? This could only be done bv a further subsidy: but this is not National Party nolicy. Now, take groceries, many of these articles cost 100 per cent, to 200 per rent, more than the retail price in 1935. Is the grocer to carry this reduction? The same applies to draperv in that the import costs are from 200 per cent, to 300 per cent, above 1935 retail prices. —Your*, etc., FARMER’S SON. November 14, 1949. .