LABOUR AND THE FARMERS

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 184, 30 April 1924, Page 10

LABOUR AND THE FARMERS

GIVING THEMSELVES AWAY (Contributed by the Welfare League.) In some recent articles of ours dealing with the Now- Zealand Labour party’s land policy we have shown how this Socialist party is engaged in covering up its real programme and endeavouring to catch the working farmers with a lot of specious primuses that cannot be fulfilled. Our ronim-, tion has been that the Red advocates have been playing the part of “artful dodgers” by seeking to persuade the people that they are aiming merely at moderate reform whilst they are actually aiming at a land policy of revolution to dispossess all private landholders pnd make them mere serfs of the State. It has been denied that thev are practicing evasion—the truth will out. however—in the "New Zealand Worker,” April 9. 1924, n member of the party, writes as fall ° WS ’ A PLAIN ADMISSION.

The Editor, Sir, — It is obvious that if Labour Is to. get the reins of government we must ■win the farmers to our side. — So we ar© glad to see that our M.P. s orc touring round the country. But what prospect is there of gaming their supnort with our present programme? Can wo show. them that it is to their interest to join up with us? . . There is one point that will neutralise all our efforts, and set the farmers against us as soon as they find it out. Wo propose to take away from them the freehold. Not at once, perhaps, but gradually. , Now, I don’t deny that there is mnrii to be said for the State leasehold. I supported it myself .years are when Mackenzie was legislating on those lines. But rightly or wronfdv. th© farmers will not have it.. And the “Welfare” League knows it, and had an article in our local newspaper. I. in the absence of a better, am chnmnion in its columns for Labour, and found that . I could not. reply as T would have liked, to their article. We wore “artful dodgers.” because we tried to hide the damning fact that we were against the freehold. course. I did reply to it. and “dodged” the point as best I could. But T didn’t like it. I would have wished to deny such a damaging statement. I,of, me tell you a tale: One of our M.P.’s was staying with, me and mentioned that he was building a. house in town. I asked him. was it freehold? No. he said, it was a rotten lease. Oh. I said. what was the matter wl+h it? (With much annoyance.) “There are so many bothering pin-nricks.” Yes. that’s just it, and the farmer doos not like tho prospect. Yet my friend the M.P. could not see the application! As though the State as landlord could give leases without those bothering pin-pricks I It can’t lie done; if there is a lease, then there jnrtst be conditions. . Anyhow, tho farmer thinks so. until we <jan oonvinoe him to the contrary. Resides, the leasehold is had from the State’s point of view also. Consider the expense of administration, and the army of officials —and the bribery and corruption. Yours, ofc.. (Signed) E. S. DUKES. It is not. only in regard to the freehold that the. Red party has been seeViim- to cover its tracks. The official platform says “that no privately owned land shall be sold or transferred cKcept to the State.” That is beino explained to mean that the 83-ate shall bo the sole land agent, Jfhich is a palpable deception. Tt means nothing of the kind., and the men who give the explanation know that. The people ought to resent the attempts now- being made to deceive them on this important subject of land policy.