The General Election

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29366, 19 November 1960, Page 4

The General Election

Sir,—The world is oblivious to our General Election. The coverage given it by the press in Britain and the United States is negligible compared with that afforded the Maori All Black controversy (from which emerged the picture of a mysterious organisation called “Rugby Union” exercising a precedence over both Government and public opinion in international disputes involving principle). One paper here commented that the parties were campaigning on identical platforms. It is no wonder that an election campaign fought on an issue of magnanimity fails to stir imaginations in a country where a major party lies shattered by ideological difference. It is high time, now we have come to accept at least some social responsibility, that the argument over how much for X and how much for Y was rele. gated to a competent administration which knows the needs of X and Y and politicians concerned themselves with something more, disturbingly radical and pungently gutsy.—Yours, etc., B. J. POFF. London, November 14 K 1960. Sir,—A recent issue of the Social Credit “Guardian" discussed a small community of five people who traded with each other by barter. A sixth person arrived to act as banker. He lent each person £lOO and charged 5 per cent, interest Thus, by the end of the year, the total community debt was £525, with only £5OO in circulation. Thus each person must raise prices to recover from the other four the extra £5 owed to the banker. This argument has an obvious flaw. The banker must live, too. By providing currency and avoiding the clumsy barter system he enables the five producers to snend more time producing and to produce £lO5 worth (or more) of goods. These extra goods are sold to the banker who pays for them with the £25 he has received in interest. Thus, at the end of the year, everyone comes out square.—Yours, etc., H. R. EVANS. Ashburton, November 16, 1960. Sir,—The constant reiteration of Labour's opponents to the effect that the Communists are backing Labour is just plain nonsense on the face of things. Labour is opposed by a Communist in all electorates, and far from Labour being fellow-travellers as alleged, their principles are worlds apart. The Communist doctrine is founded on atheism while that of Socialism is applied Christianity. Christ himself was a socialist and all the work he did among the people with whom he dwelt on earth was distinctly socialist. This is the main difference between the two.—Yours, etc.. B. O’CONNOR. November 16,_ 1960. Sir,—lf a married couple have a child or two they can get a mortgage on them to obtain a new house. If they have their eye on a sound comfortable house they cannot get a loan on that, unless from private enterprise; so this poor young couple must rent the house at £5 10s or more a week. If they can’t manage that, per- • haps they may get a spare room in a slum area. Without children they get no consideration from this alleged workers’ Government. What a tragedy! National and Social Credit are both pledged to lend money on older properties. Social Credit at minimum interest. The Massey Government provided homes for workers on £lO deposit That was real statesmanship. Any working people who vote for Labour policy on housing are certainly not doing what they should in their own and children’s interests.—Yours, etc., HIRAM HUNTER. November 17, 1960.

Sir,—The National Party promises (1) J o make Social Security safe, (2) to grant 3 per cent, housing loans, and (3) to continue the capitalisation of family benefits, and appeals to electors to “elect a government you can trust.” In 1938 the National Party asserted categorically that if elected as the government they would not implement the Social Security legislation. In the intervening years they have adopted a “tongue in the cheek” attitude in reference to benefits of social security. National Party members of Parliament bitterly opposed and voted against the introduction of 3 per cent, housing loans and the capitalisation of family benefits. The opposition in the House to thes- two measures by the National Party and its “noyes” attitude to social security plainly indicates that the National Party is not worthy of the trust ft seeks.—Yours, etc.. ELECTOR. November 17, 1960. * Sir,—-I am sure that many of your readers win be surprised and amused, and in some cases disgusted, with the arguments and statements made in reference to next week's General Election. No party, leader, or candidate has all the virtues and none of the vices, and vice versa. To me the issue is just as perfectly simple as it has been in previous elections. If we believe in a maximum of freedom with a minimum of controls then we vote for the National Party candidate whether we like him or his leader or not. On the other hand, if we believe in the socialist State with the bare and diminishing minimum of freedom and the ever-increasing controls a and regimentations then we vote

for the Labour Party. If we believe in the unknown and the untried then we can throw away a vote to the Social Credit Party. What could be simpler than that? —Yours, etc., RATS. November 18. 1960. Sir, —In reply to those who tried to prove the erroneous statement made by Mr Walker (National) I quote the following statement from “The Press”: “Professor L. C. Webb, professor of political science at the Australian National University, and formerly of Christchurch, in the latest issue of a Canberra University journal, said; ’Where there are powerful working-class movements and well organised trade unions as in New Zealand and Australia, the Communist Party had relatively little influence.' Professor Webb, who said he was not a member of the A.L.P., said: ‘The greatest obstacle to the development of the Communist Party is the strength of the Labour Party’.” This should silence the tie-up bogy.—Yours, etc., ST. ALBANS. November 18, 1960. Sir, —The moat vital issue in this election is the question of ever-rising prices. There is practically a dead silence by both the main parties as to wliat action either side would take to combat this unnatural position. Butter, flour, bread, and ■ milk are all pegged, which gives the housewife a better chance to plan her purse. Take fish and meat; also many other essential foods which have run rampant in everrising prices. This position has got right out of hand. The Social Credit candidates tell us their plans to combat it. Surely it is time for both main parties to have courage to tell the people what their propositions are. — Yours, etc., FAIR PLAY. November 18, 1960. Sir.—After studying the Social Credit policy I am of the opinion that it is a National-Party-private-enterprise philosophy grafted on to Labour’s monumental socialist policy. Therefore it is not different from the National Party policy which has done exactly the same. The Social Credit party promises debt-free loans and yet is going to charge 3 per cent interest on housing loans, and will also still have taxation. The promise of a £lO tax refund to parents of children who attend a private school conflicts with previous condemnation of the Labour Party’s “wicked” tax refund of £lOO. How can the Social Credit tree take root and blossom with contradictory statements as its nourishment?—Yours, etc.. LEST WE FORGET. November 17, 1960.

Sir, —Miss Howard said, “We stretched the social security benefits to the limit.” She stretched them over the limit for the rich. Those on the means test got no rise for over 13 months. Will she or any other candidate tell us what they think of the way the social security was stretched? —Yours, etc..

FAR BACK DAN. November 17, 1960.

Sir, —With many of the candidates condemning the policy of their opponents and expounding the merits of their own, quite a lot of people will not know whom to vote for, and it will be impulse at the last moment that, will cast their vote. There is not much doubt, however, that most who have a mind of their own, made up their minds two years ago when it became fully anparent that the party then elected was elected on the unconditional promise that if they became the Government they would not increase taxes, which proved to be one of the most awful lies imaginable under the circumstances. If we put them back again after that, it would show them and the world what a lot of gullible dupes we are.— Yours, etc., OUR WORD MUST BE OUR BOND. November 17. 1960.

Sir.—" Sumner Labour” says Mr Nash’s pledge was “to hold the cost of living with regard to essential food prices at . 1957 levels.” Bread prices have not altered but bakers have put prices up by making fancy loaves, cut and wrapped bread, for which they charge more. Bacon and ham prices increased, all meat prices increased, eggs, fish, vegetables, fruit and tea prices all increased; also clothing prices. Butter at 2s per lb is file only essential food that has remained fixed.—Yours. etc.. SUMNER NATIONAL. November 18, 1960.

Sir.—Your political correspondent, in his very interesting election survey, says that there was in the 1957 election “a surprising new pocket of Labour support in the Paparoa Street-Grants road area." and “rapidly increasing support (for Labour) on the Roman Catholic Church and school development in the InnesMahars roads district.’’ Would your contributor be willing to state on what evidence he bases these conclusions? Like many who take a scientific interest in election results I am profoundly interested.—Yours, etc., POLITICAL SCIENCE.

November 16, 1960. [Our correspondent can see the evidence for himself in the palling booth figures printed in Parliamentary papers H 33 for 1952, 1955 and 1958.—Ed., •The PreaS.”]

Riccarton Tearooms Sir,—Replying to “Behaviour," the tearoom on the outside enclosure is preferable to the one inside. It is situated underneath the main stand, and Is known as the "black hole of Calcutta;” no tablecloths, no forms: •ve stand at bare trestles, and the attendant draws five cups forward to the urn with four fingers and thumb inside the cups. The Health Department warns us about hepatitis and handling of food and utensils. Mr Bell says yhis committee Is considering improving catering amenities!” Not before time.—Yours, etc SEVEN SHILLINGS. November 18, 1960.