General Election

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30288, 14 November 1963, Page 7

General Election

Sir,—ln 1935 Social Creditors were instrumental in electing Labour to office. This was frankly admitted by Mr Savage, who had promised to implement Social Credit low-tax and low-price proposals if we did not enter candidates. Some months after the election a deputation of Social Crediters met Mr Howard, Minister of Internal Affairs, who explained that the reason the promise had not been kept was that Cabinet had decided to implement production, distribution, and exchange instead. This resulted in high taxes, high prices, and higher borrowing just as National policy does and is what Karl Marx advocated as the best means of defeating our way of living, which he called capitalism. So it is either Social Credit or communism and if voters do not elect a Social Credit Government they will certainly get communism.—Yours, etc., F. W. STEVENS. November 13, 1963.

Sir,—l join with others in condemning your recent editorial misrepresenting Social Credit. You state that Social Credit has been tried in Germany and France, although not under the name of Social Credit. British Columbia has recently returned a Social Credit Government after 12 years in office, with an increased majority—34 out of 52 seats. Alberta now has had a Social Credit Government for 29 years. Why? Because public debt has been wiped out and because the Government pays all householders’ rates. Of the 63 seats in Alberta, Social Credit holds 60, a clear indication of its public appeal. Nowhere in Social Credit philosophy or policy is there any mention of printing more money; nor has any Social Credit candidate ever mentioned that there would be any additional money printed. Modern economic methods are needed for a space age. The winds of change demand that this should be so. — Yours, etc., LOUISE FORSTER. November 13. 1963.

Sir, —Mr Flint's allegation that “socialism is the first step to communism'' is not entirely valid. Ever since Lenin reviled them as “pettybourgeois reformists'’ and “lackeys of the monopoly cartels,” moderate socialists have forestalled Communist ambitions by proving that the worker’s interests are best served by legislation witbin the existing social framework. Evolution precludes revolution. Recently our

Communists bewailed Labour's disavowal of the antiquated “class struggle” axiom. At a meeting in Wellington, reported in “People’s Voice” (October 9, 1963), Mr V. G. Wilcox, the Communist Party’s general secretary, lamented, “They (Labour) want the lion to lie down with the lamb because they both graze on the same grass. No-one has told Nordy that the lion is a meat-eating animal.’’ The lamb will hardly be induced to forsake its congenial pasture by Mr Wilcox's professed aptitude for lion-taming.—Yours, etc B.M.C. November 13, 1963.

Sir,—Having listened to Mr Nordmeyer and Mr Watt expound Labour’s taxation policy, I feel that one point requires clarification. They have promised a reduction in the rate of secondary employment tax to 3s in the £. How is this going to be accomplished? There are only two ways—either reduce the rate of income tax to Is 8d in the £, or charge no social security income tax on secondary-em-ployment eamnjngs. Both speakers have carefully refrained from mentioning how it is going to be done. In any case, Mir Watt's statement last night that the present rate was 4s 8d in the £ was entirely incorrect. Where’ has be been since October 1? Or is this an example of the “new look” and “dynamic leadership?”—Yours, etc., AWAKE November 12, 1963.

Sir,—“Mainlander” has a distorted view of social security if he thinks that the old age pension of 19s a month gave security. That figure represented the magnanimity of those “twin devils of socialism,” Dick Seddon and Joe Ward, whom the Tories now claim to succeed. ; Until the Labour Party introduced social security with all its many benefits, the worker had no protection against economic blizzards. I would remind “Mainlander” that Michael Savage paid out Christmas bonuses to men unemployed a few days after election in 1985. Since that time the workers < of New Zealand have not looked back, in spite of the opposition of employers and Nationalists in their attempts to undermine the Social Security Act.—Yours, etc., LYTTELTON ELECTOR. November 12. 1963.

Sir. —Election time approaches again and with it the possibility of change in the electors’ wishes; at least there will be more room for splinter votes. Mr Cracknell may be New Zealand first

Social Credit M.P. but it does not appear that either of the major parties will be threatened. Of the two. National deserve to win. They are the only party that can really fill an able and experienced Cabinet, and a second term of office should really give them a chance to show their capabilities. General apathy is the rule at New Zealand elections and this time is no exception. It is frequently seen in the newspapers that a candidate addressed five persons, or something like that- What New Zealand needs is a party with a real policy and able nten to back it up. The National Party comes nearest to-having these qualifications and deserves to win the election.—Yours, etc., HELICON. November 11, 1963,