RICCARTON BY-ELECTION

Press, Volume XCIV, Issue 28104, 20 October 1956, Page 3

RICCARTON BY-ELECTION

Sir,—When Mr M. A. Connelly asserted that the Social Credit party kept the Labour Party from the Treasury benches he did not credit the workers with any understanding of figures, or even common sense. He expects them to swallow, without consideration, parrot-like repetition of phrases coined by his sponsors, not very flattering to his hearers' intelligence. Surely anyone capable of reason realises that every vote which the Social Credit League weans from the National Party is. for all practical purposes, a vote for Labour, and if Labour politicians were worthy of support they would have gumption enough to recognise such a glaring fact, and instead of vilifying Social Crediters would present them with a few bouquets.—Yours etc.. HIRAM HUNTER. October 19, 1956.

Sir.—lf “Riccarton Protest Voter" would take the time to look into the technique of Social Credit, he would not ask such childish questions as. “Who is going to pay this unemployment benefit?” The money would come from the Reserve Bank, and would not come from the thrifty, the taxpayer. or those lucky enough to have a job under Social Credit, as he suggests. Let me ask him: Who will buy the products of the machines when automation becomes established? Most of the workers will not have the money to do so as they will be on the dole under National or Labour, and only the National Dividend of Social Credit will enable workers who are not working, to buy these goods. I would rather indulge in my.hobbv than work if I can get a machine to do my work for me, but my hobby might also be my work. —Yours etc., F. W. STEVENS. Octoper 18, 1956.

Sir, —Common sense has spoken truthfully about what Labour promised to do when first elected but failed to do. The Social Security benefits were well applied, but on other matters, one in particular. Labour promises were “scraps of paper.”. I refer to the Legal Aid Act which the Labour Government could have placed on a firm foundation, but it failed to do so.—Yours etc., ORDER! ORDER! October 19, 1956.

Sir, —I notice that Mr Dingwall stated that the majority of people want the hotel hours altered and later closing. I wonder who gave Mr Dingwall the right to say so’ A few years ago. did not 75 per cent, of the people vote for six o’clock closing? They would do so again if given the chance. I don’t think the Government has any right to alter the hours without a vote of the people. Look at statistics in New South Wales since 10 o’clock closing. The only alteration to the hours should be closing the pubs altogether and then the 100 or 200 policemen advertised for. would not be required, as 80 per cent, of crime could be attributed to drink. Do not many of those in our Courts confess that drink was their downfall?—Yours, etc.. CLOSE ’EM UP. October 19, 1956.

Sir,—Mr • Connelly’s reference to Social Crediters as “financial imposters” does the candidate no' credit although such unseemly language can (unintentionally) only react disto himself rather than to the cause he so attacks. Among such “financial imoosters” in the ranks of monetary reformers we could recommend him to study care'ully, before he so forgets himself, Mr Vincent Vickers, author of “Economi- Tribulations.’ and a one-time director of the Bank of England, who castigates the present monetary system as soundly as any of the so called “financial imposters” who rouse Mr Connelly's impotent ire.— Yours etc., FLAMBEAU. October 19, 1956.