TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1928. CHOICE OF GOVERNMENT.

Ellesmere Guardian, Volume XLVI, Issue 3271, 13 November 1928, Page 6

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1928. CHOICE OF GOVERNMENT.

With the election .campaign now virtually ended, voters have had opportunities of hearing the addresses of candidates who seek Parliamentary honours, and they should come to the poll to-mor-row well informed on the issues they are called upon to decide. They have shown a desire to hear New Zealand politics expounded from all angles, and no candidate can complain that he has not received a courteous reception. Mid-Canterbury electors have a choice of four candidates—one representative of each of the three principal Parties and one who owes allegiance to no Party. The two old districts which have been merged, iii the present electorate both returned Reform candidates in 1925 and did so for years even before Reform became the Government Party. The question the electors have to settle is whether that Party has earned a continuance of their confidence, or whether it could be replaced with advantage by another.

The Government's record during the last three years has been so completely and clearly outlined by its own candidate, Mr David Jones, that it should be familiar to every elector. In his manifesto, the Prime Minister reverted to the promise made before the 1925 poll, stating that there had been offered "no spectacular programme, no fanciful promises, but national safety and progressive development." The Government claims that it has tackled its tasks effectively, has worked consistently in the intersts of all the peoiple, and has fulfilled all that could be reasonably expected. If that claim was not* justified, would its opponents not be the first to show how and where? Criticism and empty railings there have been, but, sifted down, they have failed to show that the Government has not made the most of its opportunities, that its administration has not been capably handled, and that all sections have not received justice. We are content to leave the enumeration of the Govern- i ment's works to the candidates, but would mention the protective duties on wheat as one instance in which it has brought particular benefit to the Canterbury farmer. So much in hard cash do these duties mean to the grower that the Government would have earned his perpetual gratitude if this had been the only way in which it had assisted his interests, which is by no means true. Calculated on a yield of nine million bushels at 1/6 a bushel, the duties next season, when there are likely to be exceptionally heavy crops in Australia and elsewhere, will probably represent a sum of £675,000 handed to the producers, and of this amount, well over half ,

a million would be a gain to Canterbury. This measure was opposed by the Official Opposition, theLLabo r Party, but the United Party candidate for Mid-Canter-bury has claimed some of the kudos for the sliding scale himself. It would have been better for Mr Connolly if he had preserved the modesty he professed, for the Prime Minister has denied that he had anything to do with initiating the duties, though no one is disputing that he may have spoken on the subject. Much as money is wanted to make advances by the State immediately available, the impossibility of launching the stupendous loan scheme advocated by the United Party on the terms proposed without incurring loss and laying up trouble for the future has been demonstrated by its opponents and acknowledged by the more 'frank pf its supporters. It is an experiment that the taxpayers are not eager to risk. In this and other country elector- j ates the Party is making a star feature of its land settlement! scheme for placing farm workers on small holdings. Those who are tempted by this bait, however, should remember that they may still be able to secure such holdings with the present Government in power, and it should appaal to their logic to support the^ Party most likely to secure the; majority to carry out its schemes. Mr Coates's manifesto contains the clause: "The Government has decided to acquire small areas of land in rural districts where the occupiers, when not.fully employed on other work, could devote their time to their own holdings. These small farms would enable the purchasers, with financial assistance from the State, to establish themselves on the land in homes of their own." Confident as it professes to be, the United Party has so weak a case to present to the electors, that its ill-founded hopes of to-day may be expected to give place to sad disillusionment to-morrow.

To replace Reform by a Labour Government, which has as its objective the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange—though this ultimate aim has been kept carefully in the background during the present campaign—-is unthinkable to the majority of New Zealanders at the present time, and more especially to those in rural electorates. Its record of the past three years,' the definite plans it has framed for the ensuing term, and the paucity and impracticability of what its opponents are offering when their policies are carefully scrutinised, lead to the conclusion that the Reform Government cannot safely be replaced without leaving the way open for deploring the step. This is not an opinion inspired by partisanship, but a plain fact-which should be borne in mind by electors when they visit the poll to-morrow.