General Election

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31224, 23 November 1966, Page 20

General Election

Sir,—A certain degree of inexcusable confusion exists on the question of prices. A section advocating control seems to lack conciousness of the fact that a rigid control does exist, namely, exercised by those selling goods and services who determine to exact the highest tribute from consumers. Very little competition exists among this paternity who have the field to themselves. To assume that small .wage increases have justified the imposition of price rises to the present extent is blatently absurd. The gratuitous suggestion that the Consumer Council or institute should ensure that the council will be a powerful instrument on behalf of consumers presupposes that its activities have been associated with efforts to do something about commercial price implications. I do not know of evidence supporting this vital matter. Government legislation can only adjust price excesses. Nebulous consumers’ councils play a very minor part.— Yours, etc., D.H.C. November 22, 1966.

Sir, —A pamphlet circulated in Kaiiapoi referring to future wages increases states that “prices will be frozen” under Labour. In Britain Labour seeks desperately to fix both prices and wages, but as your leading article points out, and as the voter well knows, Labour here cannot have it both ways. I remember that early in World War II I sold my bicycle for 30s and a Model A Ford for £35. On demobilisation six years later prices had risen steeply. My employers granted me a generous wage increase, but the wage stabilisation regulations of the Labour Government of that time blocked it. As a wageearner I have ever since been suspicious of Labour promises on prices.—Yours, etc., DAVID. November 22, 1966.

Sir, —The cost of farmland is so high in relation to the income derived from it that one must wonder if our future farmers will be excluded from ownership of their farms and, if they are able to purchase whether they will ever be secure in ownership because of the high interest charges. Young farmer sons of well-established farmers or traders have some reasonable hopes, but what of others not so well assisted? Is there likely to be established for intending farmers who possess satisfactory academic and practical qualifications a form of land settlement finance inclusive—and this is the sting in the tail—of a suspensory loan of up to half the loan, required, according to the circumstances of the particular case, free of interest for so long as the farmer conducts his operations according to normal rules of good husbandry and meets his commitments in a proper and business-like manner? —Yours, etc. QUESTION MARK. November 22, 1966.

Sir, —Governments come and go, but the cost of living, along with taxes and rates, continue to rise; and it is time that the people of this country turned aside from the ballyhoo that is being proclaimed by both the National and Labour Parties and viewed the picture as it really is. As a small businessman who has just been forced out of business by rising

costs (my business is controlled now by a monopoly who have been so kind as to offer me a job in what was previously my own business), I feel very bitter about the broken promises of past politicians to halt the cost of living, etc., and the growth of monopolies. I do not know much about Social Credit, but they certainly could not get us into more trouble than we are in today and I intend to give them my vote.— Yours, etc., PRIVATE ENTERPRISE. November 21, 1966. Sir, —-In Labour’s publication, “Today,” delivered to farmers, I am somewhat intrigued to find an article in admiration of automation. It is headed “Automation the Key” and features an automated dairy factory in Morrinsville. The factory, once operated by 20 men, now requires only four. What happens to the other 16?—Yours, WORKER. November 22, 1966. Sir, —After having listened to Mr Kirk and Mr Holyoake I found it refreshing, and I felt a stir of hope, to hear Mr O’Brien (Social Credit) speak in Nelson. He, to my mind, is offering the people of New Zealand what they want, a respite from rising costs (something which the National and Labour Party have failed to stem). Labour and National, having both failed, should not be given the chance to blunder on. What we need is a fresh invigorating lead from another party and I feel that Social Credit can provide it. —Yours, etc., DAIRY FARMER. November 18, 1966.

Sir, —Assuming pensioners receive the 2j per cent cost-of-living rise granted by the Court, they would get 2s 9d a week compared with the 10s of the average worker on £lOOO and £1 on £2OOO weekly. Both parties claiming to treat us fairly must think that as we have little to spend, rising costs affect us less. Every percentage rise makes us progressively further behind other wage-earners while the farmer, in spite of falling prices, receives nothing at all. After years in office neither party has legislated for a flat rate of Increase which, as rising costs affect all equally, is the only fair way and easier paid out.—Yours, etc., PENSIONER (AMBERLEY). November 22, 1966.

Sir, —The announcement in the advertisement on page 20 of this morning’s issue will certainly be an inducement for some home-owners to vote Labour. In our block alone there are seven women ratepayers, on small fixed incomes, whose rates now reached a level where they are four times what they were 20 years ago. We wonder whether it costs more to dispose of sewage and garbage in Merivale than it does in say, Sydenham or Linwood. — Yours, etc., WINCHESTER STREET. November 22, 1966.

Sir, —Out of Christchurch’s too many thousands of State servants, only about 200 attended last week’s meeting, which was obviously another of Labour’s “get smart” manipulations. Worse still, in this week’s “Public Service Journal” the attendance figure is reported as over 1000, which, to put it mildly, is a misleading bureaucratic terminological inexactitude. The bricks supplied by the back-room boys to build up Labour have been dropped all over the site. “Wildly” useless as building material, they will probably now be childishly thrown.—Yours, etc., A. B. CEDARIAN. November 22, 1966.