THE ELECTION

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26513, 30 August 1951, Page 5

THE ELECTION

Sir,—ln three previous letters appearing in “The Press” during the election campaign (which I may say were directly inspired by Mr Nash in his opening election address) I have endeavoured to emphasise what is of course well known—that all our cherished institutions depend for their continued existence on the world situation, which is to-day in such a very unsettled and dangerous state. Take our social security, for example. A third world war would certainly put an end to that, even if it did not ‘ the end of civilisation, as many authorities predict it would. If electors in general would exercise some such serious thought before casting their votes next Saturday, forgetting for the time all the disgraceful mercenary promises or offers made by both parties (almost like bidding at an auction we should, I am sure, get a much more realistic result.—Yours, etc., GEORGE INGRAM. August 29, 1951.

Sir, —Mr Holland is making quite an issue of heckling at his meetings. It is not something new. All politicians and others who speak from public platforms are liable to encounter it. People’s memories are very short,. or they would remember that the Communist Party’s offices in Auckland were wrecked and wanton damage done to their property; and there was hardly an outcry and certainly no one suffered punishment. So why should the Nationalist Party be so indignant at a little heckling. Listening to Mr Sullivan, I would say, that he deliberately provokes disvxder,' by his utterances and manner on the platform.—Yours, etc., MAY E. FUREY. August 29, 1951.

Sir, —I hope the public in New Zealand are noting the behaviour of the friends of the Labour Party at the meetings of the National candidates. Perhaps the people will wake up to the fact that Labour is cringing to these wreckers, and disciples of mob rule, in hopes that, with their aid, they can crawl back to the Treasury benches. Apparently the Labour candidates are prepared to pay the price for any votes they can cadge from these friends of Communism, who live in hopes of seeing the Red Army in Cathedral square. Mr Nash reminds me of the policeman in Dublin who wanted to know, during the war, whom he was neutral against. I think we can guess whom Mr Nash was neutral against during the watersiders’ strike and after.— Yours, etc.,’ HENRY KITSON. August 29, 1951. Sir, —If Mr Holland thinks that by repression and coercion he can destroy militant unionism and bring about a new era of industrial peace, he is profoundly mistaken. He would have to be as “strong” as Hitler —arid walk the same path. And how convenient is the creation of a Communist bogy, as an excuse for the filching of liberties and the psychological conditioning to the idea of a third world war—a war to solve the problems and calm the fears of Wall Street. —Yours, etc., JOHN O. STEPHENS. August 29, 1951.

Sir, —I was shocked to read in your news columns yesterday that New Zealand has imported 6000 tons of beet sugar from England. The people at Home are rationed to Jib of sugar weekly, yet the National Government is mean-spirited enough to take sugar from English homes to bolster up the shortage here, caused by its inability or unwillingness to end the strike. Instead of shouldering the unpopular burden of a drastic cut here, which would have lost the Government votes, it threw the burden on the people of England. So much for National patriotism.—Yours, etc., E. B. NORTH. August 29, 1951.

Sir, —The National Party is condemned by its own words and actions, as no responsible Government requires an additional mandate to administer law and order in a constitutional manner.—Yours, etc., D. ROBERTSON. Rakala. August 28. 1951.

Sir,—l was interested to read Mr Rosenberg’s letter and his calculation of the cost of carrying out Mr Nash’s election promises. It is gratifying to have the assurance of an economist that either Mr Nash or Mr Holland would, if elected, be able to carry out his promises with the finance available. I should be very pleased if Mr Rosenberg would calculate the cost of removing the means test from the age benefit. I wonder that neither party has made this a plank in its election platform. The means test is the most humiliating experience old people have to go through. There is no means test for the child allowance, so why one for the age benefit. Removal of the means test would bring revenue to the State, by allowing old people to engage in work or business, and would also help to ease the labour shortage.—Yours, etc., August 29, 1951.

Sir,—lt has been said that the salary of the president of the new union at Lyttelton is being paid by the Government: also that Mr McMullan, the president of the new Auckland union, who has been In New Zealand only a matter of months, has been found a house bv the Government. I should appreciate it if you could tell me whether these statements are true.— Yours, etc.. CURIOUS. August 26, 1951. ["Absolutely untrue, so far as I am concerned.” said Mr G. W. Parmenter, president of the new union at Lyttelton, when this letter was referred to him.] Sir,—As electors there are certain points we should remember, and certain questions we should ask ourselves before Saturday. (1) Mr Holland placed his case before the country when the strike occurred in February. He asked us to condemn the watersiders unheard. Is this British justice? (2) Prices have sky-rocketed in the last 20 months. Mr Holland blames the war in Korea. What would happen to prices if the National Party had control of our economic policy in a world-sized war? (3) The National Party is making the bogy of Communism the heaviest of its election weapons. Should fear, or intelligence. guide our votes? (4) Mr Holland went to the country so that the people could approve of his settlement of the waterfront dispute. The waterfront question is obviously still unsettled. Should the taxpayers be asked to pay thousands for a job half done?—Yours, etc., jk C. mm M lea.