Labour Party Policy

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31017, 24 March 1966, Page 12

Labour Party Policy

Sir,—“F.W.P.F.” states that “without firm, farm, or factory, there would be a lot of wage-earners looking for wk." How stupid can some people remain? It would be much more logical to say that “without workers, there would be neither farm nor factory.” "F.W.P.F.” should visit the library and ask for a primer on economics. There are three factors in the production of our requirements —raw materials, labour, and capital. None would get very far without the others. The capitalist element could debanknotes, cheque

books, stocks and bonds, and labour would lose only a few tons of paiper.—Yours, etc., D. ROBERTSON. March 22, 1966.

Sir,—There is one fundamental difference between the policy of the National Party and that of the Labour Party: the Labour Party stands square behind the policy of the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange: the National Party stands for private enterprise with freedom of choice. It is true, there are things that are not as free of Government control as some people would wish; but the reasons for this will be explained to the people at election time, I hope. A very good example of this State control was the State rental houses. These, Labour would not sell to the tenants. Now that a great number have been sold, the Government is receiving money instead of paying out of taxation for their upkeep. The same-thing applies to shop and industry: private enterprise and progress.—Yours, etc.. F.W.P.F. March 22 1966.

Sir,—Why must “F.W.P.F." realise that “there is no such thing today as private enterprise” because your correspondent, R. Davis, is concerned about his choice of tinned fruit, beer, and milk? Even if it were true, our political ideals in 1966 should rise above the level of the stomach. —Yours, etc. LEARN AND LIVE. March 23, 1966.