THE GENERAL ELECTION

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27501, 8 November 1954, Page 9

THE GENERAL ELECTION

Sir,—The Prime Minister is very gratified about obtaining a loan of £ 10,000,000 in London. Should the rest of New Zealand be so pleased? The loan is issued at 98 and is for 30 years at 3| per cent. In plain language, this means that we get £9,800,000, but in the 30-year period we pay £10,500,000 in interest, and at its end we still owe £10,000,000, i.e., £200,000 more than we obtained in the first place. In other words, we have to pay £20,500,000 to obtain the use of £9,800,000. This, we are told, is “sound finance.” No wonder the money-lenders in London are pleased with New Zealand. Should we in New Zealand be as pleased as London is with this action of the Prime Minister?—Yours, etc., , M.B. November 5, 1954.

Sir,—ln his outline of the Social Credit Political League’s policy, Mr Ayers, candidate for St. Albans, detailed advantages claimed by him to have resulted in British Columbia since 1952. He said the Social Credit Government wiped off 50,000,000 dollars, beside increasing social benefits and reducing taxation, and paying a national dividend of 15 dollars a month to every man, woman and child in the provinca On the same of your paper, immediately below your report of Mr Ayers’s speech, Mr Williams, a New Zealander, now resident in British Columbia, and a voter there, informs us that neither in British Columbia nor Alberta has the Social Credit Party interfered in any way with the monetary system. Mr Owen, the big chief of the league here, admits that in no countrv in the world is social credit in operation. How then can it do such wonderful things? Will Mr Ayers please explain?—Yours, etc.. D.A. November 5, 1954.

Sir,—Apart from seeing that they were heading for inflation and ‘a colossal financial mess for someone else to clean up, I have been wondering just where Social Credit candidates and their supporters thought they were heading. It certainly has not been possible to find out from the high-sounding but empty phrases they have used. Do we see it all in your correspondent John Hart’s remark: “Social Credit is not the end all of everything. " Communism is the end or the lihe. Not even social credit can stop that.” That’s what he thinks, but we know we have a Government now, and will have after next week, which has'stopped Communist domination of our unions and is the answer to those who would force dictatorships on us —Yours, etc., ' BE VIGILANT. • November 7, 1954.

Sir,—The respective leaders of the National and Labour parties are emphatic in their condemnation of Social Credit proposals. Is our democracy really working, when campaign speeches, especially at this stage, reveal both leaders saying, “How much better it is this or that way,” “how much more do you want?” “Tell us a better way,” etc. Ejectors should ask themselves, “Enough for what?” There is, of course, the logical answer, “Enough for the intended result,” that we as consumers are entitled to, living in a self-governing Dominion of the British Empire. Mr Wilfrid Owen has Sven a pledge to the Crown for yalty, and to the electors, to grant them, through constitutional means, consumer satisfaction. Society is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. One’s status as a consumer and an individual is largely in the hands of the Parliamentary representative one elects.—Yours, etc., P.M.C. November 7, 1954._

Sir, —May I have the opportunity of correcting Mr R. H. McDonald’s misleading statement about taxation. He says that the National Government has not reduced taxation and has even taken off the £l5 rebate and increased the initial tax from 2s 6d to 3s in the £. Grant that it has done this, but why does Mr McDonald not come clean and finish by saying that it has considerably increased the exemptions, which is a boon to the worker. Under Labour, a married man without children on £5OO a year paid £l3 13s 2d in tax, but under the Naitonal Government he pays nothing. All Mr McDonald’s talk will not convince any worker, who reasons for himself, that he is better off under the National Government. —Yours, etc., A WORKER. November 5, 1954.