The General Election

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29367, 21 November 1960, Page 7

The General Election

Sir,—Hiram Hunter bemoans the fact that people have been unable to get loans to buy what he refers to as a sound, comfortable, second-hand house and states that National and Social Credit are both pledged to lend money on older properties. He fails to mention that those loans are promised only on second mortgage. This means that a person first has to raise a first mortgage. Where are they going to get this first mortgage? This is the escape clause.—Yours, etc., B. O’CONNOR. November 20, 1960.

Sir, —In reply to “Rats,” I would say that at least we have tried both Labour and National and we do know just exactly what to expect. On results all they have given us, and will continue, to give us, is increased taxation, higher costs of living, and a constant watering down of the value of our money. If it is good enough for successful business, and professional men, including bank managers, public accountants, and a teacher of economics, then I guess Social Credit is good enough for me. At least they could not do much worse than the present no-hopers.— Yours, etc., H.R.P. November 20, 1960. Sir, —Let us not lose sight of the fact that the internal economy of New Zealand, as the ship of State, was on a steady and even keel at the end of 1957. It was torpedoed by the Labour Party, and all aboard have been struggling ever since to keep the ship afloat It is a good ship and is worthy of a good captain and crew. As travellers on the ship let us support the crew that advocates backbone as more desirable than wishbone. A goal attained by effort is more desirable than a red apple to keep us quiet (probably good only on the outside). Our overseas funds ran down because prices for our produce dropped (could happen any time). The answer: send more produce and take more of our customers’ goods, that they may be able to buy it: reciprocal trade.— Yours, etc., B. CONSTANT. November 17, 1960.

Sir, — I do not know whether your political correspondent has recently been in Nelson but his purvey is the first I have seen in any newspaper outside Nelson to get to the heart of the problem of Nelson and the railway. With his interpretation of consequences of the railway I do not agree. A little more close study added would make the writer see the broad economic aspect more clearly but at least he has admitted that the railway issue is the prime one in the Nelson election. Why is it so? Because Nelsonians have both eyes open wide, especially against Nationalist and road transport deceptions. They know what is their greatest need and they are out to make a big bid to get it. A pulp and paper mill without a railway—surely Mr Holyoake should know Nelson better than that.—Yours, etc.. DIESEL, NELSON. November 18, 1960.

Sir, —How splendid to read of Mr Kennedy’s consulting his defeated opponent; there seems even to be a probability that some Republicans will be offered positions in the Administration. Surely this shows that Mr Kennedy has the good of his country and the world at heart. How differently Mr Nash behaved when he took office, with such a small majority. He dismissed New Zealand’s really great and world-respected statesman. Sir Leslie Munro, and replaced him in the United Nations by someone whom no-one could call a world statesman and after three years the Washington position is still unfilled. Let us not forget that Mr Nash put party politics before the good of New Zealand and the world.—Yours, etc., November 18, 1960. Sir,—l saw in the newspaper that Mr Nash was given an enthusiastic welcome when he visited the watersiders but among these 400 strong men I did not read that as much as one little voice had protested against the heavy taxes put on as soon as Labour started their governing, which has cost the watersiders thousands of pounds since 1958. I do not think any of the present watersiders was so farsighted either that he asked Mr Nash what he has “in the bag” for future taxes. To vote Labour only out of sympathy for the name is risky and I would never vote Labour under such circumstances because I am.—Yours, etc., NOT A FOOL. November 20, 1960. Sir, —Labour has kept its promises, unlike the Nationalists who promised that the pound would go further. When Labour took office they found the country in a bad way. Labour was forced to put up beer, tobacco, and petrol, and what a fuss the Nationalists made of it. We do not see the Nationalists promising to reduce the prices on these three commodities. Labour also introduced the yearly paid holidays.—Yours, etc., LABOUR SUPPORTER. November 20, 1960.

Sir, —Labour politicians talk about thrift, incentive, and income rates, but not a word about the thousands of widows and families being robbed of their inheritance, nor the tenfold tax increase imposed on a minority whose products affect our economy so much. Perhaps they would explain the following:—ln 1956, a property had a capital value of £16,000 odd. Under Labour the death duty would now be well over £lB,OOO. To avoid this by giving, the gift duty would be over £12,000 plus £5OO stamp duty and expenses. In 1957 the land tax was under £27 (National); in 1960, £297 odd (Labour) for exactly the same property, payable whether the business shows a loss or whether it is mortgaged to the limit. Who said we were better off under Labour?—Yours, etc., CURIOUS. November 18, 1960. Sir, —In “The Press” of November 12 is an article on the sentiments of Mr F. P. Walsh on the wonderful merits of compulsory unionism. When this horrible iniquity came in about 1936, there were many men who would never have come under the dictates of Labour, who were trying to feed their families by doing anything and everything which would bring in a crust, and were compelled to join a union before they were allowed to work. The subscriptions obtained compulsorily from these unfortunates helped to boost the

Labour Party funds, no doubt. Miss Mabel Howard was secretary of the General Labour Union at that time, for, I think, the whole South Island. She was probably instrumental in having the workers’ subscription raised by 2s 6d per ticket, which, from memory, doubled the price.— Yours, etc., NOT FORGOTTEN. November 20, 1960.