The Press SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1950. Labour’s Civic Policy

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26261, 4 November 1950, Page 6

The Press SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1950. Labour’s Civic Policy

The- Labour Party's manifesto for he Christchurch local body elec‘icns on November 18 is summar-:-eri in the news columns this ■: :>■.£?. Before the election it a .:.- .-each most electors in the form : a 1 mchure containing, also, bio- ;••• ." notes on the Labour can't '.'mments on the record of y men's i' and a mes- . ■' the Mayoral candidate. M M?cfa-iane. M.P. The “c f this brochure is in scrap- :• rm. made un of newspaper e.r.tings culled mainly from reports ' "‘s'.'ings of the Citizens' Assoa's -. and of statements bearing ': e resent d;<sension within ; ==o-Uti-'m. The Labour Part'-, of

r .:r.». is entrlcd to take what •-r "t it rrav f -om the division t. t-® forms of its. opponents; and ■o ci'.-j!" it will make the m n st of ihe't d:.’fe r enccs from the public triatfo’m. “Is a body, split within I‘se f capable of running th? im- ' poftant affairs of Christehur h "City'’'' ; <l:s the brochure. The

ansv er. of course, is that the Citizens Association, un'ike the Labour Partv. makes no claim to “ run ’’ ’he aff.S'"s of the cite. Unlike the Lab'ur Party, the Citizens’ Association limits i's functions to selecting and nominating suitable candidates and working for their election on an agreed and nublished policy. Subject to the obligation to

ngrry out the policy to the best of their ability, the elected candidates are thereafter free to act and vote as individuals—unlike Labour Party nominees, who are continually unde,- the direction of their political organisation and its affiliated bodies It is surely significant and revealing that a Labour Party manifest takes it for granted that ~ ' ic aTsi-s will be “run", not by ’he e'ected candidates, but by the or’a-'isa'ion which nominates them.

Labour has had little experience of control of Christchurch local bodies in recent years. The Tramway Board is an exception: and it is possible that Labour's experience here has been both enlightening and humbling. Certainly it has enlightened the public even if it has not humb’ed the board. At any rate, the party's policies for the City Council, the Hospital Board, the Harbour Board, and the Catchment Board are more modest and realistic than they were in 1947. Gone are the ambitious plans for a selfsupporting town hall and civic centre block, for ending the power shortage with standby plants, for reducing the charges for sports grounds, and a dozen or more additional expensive projects, all of which would be pursued side by side with the appealing but incompatible objective of “ exploring the “ possibility of reducing the rates ”. This time Labour pledges itself only to “ maintain ” —is this an unconscious tribute to the present council's administration?—the lowest possible rates consistent with efficient services to the people. Perhaps the most ambitious of the Labour Party’s plans for the City Council relate to housing. All are described as self-supporting—more flats for the elderly at “ reduced “ rentals ’. building sections at “ reasonable prices ” provided by development and subdivision of suitable land, the enforcement (where necessary) of the Housing Improvement Act. and “ an examination of the possibility" of building houses for rental. There may be a case for all of these things; but it is doubtful whether they will be self-supporting, and still more doubtful whether they are physically possible because of the heavy demands already made on the building industry. Elsewhere the Labour Party’s policy ignores similar difficulties whenever they stand in the. way of measures that may appeal to electors. There will be a “ campaign ” for the “ long overdue ” improvement of roads and footpaths and for the provision of channelling; and it matters not to the Labour Party that materials, labour, and plant for these desirable projects are both scarce and expensive and that there are still controls on the use of cement. “ Safeguards ” will be provided to protect electricity users against rising costs. How? If the cost of bulk supply is increased, as seems certain, retail buyers of current can be “safeguarded ” only by running the electricity undertaking at a loss and drawing on reserves (which will hit every consumer just as hard in the long run) or by subsidising electricity revenue out of rates (and the consumer will still pay). This kind of policy will not appeal to the thinking citizen. Nor will the thinking elector be impressed by the specious nonsense which in another section of the oolicy brochure seeks to identify the Citizens’ Association and its candidates with “big business” This is the proof that is offered All householders and home owners have had their rates “ substantially

“ increased ’’ while those of big business firms in the most valuable part of the city remained about the same, and in some cases “ were “ even slightly reduced ’’ —this last in capital letters. The Labour Party, of course, is entitled to criticise the present City Council for allowing the rates to rise, although must intelligent citizens will expect it to point out what economies might have been effected to prevent the increase. But it is nothing less than political fraud to imply that the council has power to make the burden of rates fall heavily on one section of the community and lightly on another. The incidence of rates is determined solely by the valuations which are carried out hv a Government department; and in the fixing of those values the City Council has no part whatever.