Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY. 18, 1931. MR. HOLLAND'S ATTACK

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 41, 18 February 1931, Page 8

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY. 18, 1931. MR. HOLLAND'S ATTACK

; Mr. H..E. Holland, the Leader of the Labour Parly, rendered both his party and his country a poor service by the unqualified severity of his at- , tack upon the programme of retrenchment and taxation announced by the Prime Minister. There has never been in the history of any country, says Mr. Holland, such wholesale dishonouring of election pledges, accompanied by an amazing determination to hold on to office in defiance of tho. electors, whoso confidence has been violated. If we cared to imitate Mr. Holland's licence of sweeping assertion we might retort that never in the history of any country had a party ; leader committed himself to a more ludicrous extravagance of . mis- , statement, and we could do so in perfect confidence that our extravagance was at any rate less patently absurd than his. The Government's "amazing determination to hold on to office" is perhaps the gem of Mr. Holland's collection. Whom has it amazed? and why? It is fortunately not in accordance with British practice for a Government to resign as soon as it encounters a difficulty, and for that reason among others we may safely say that the thought of resignation llever entered the Prime Minister's head. We might even venture to add that no such possibility ever entered the head of Mr. Holland himself, and that the amazement which he now professes is merely his rhetorical way of expressing disapproval of something that was never in doubt. If he was really expecting Mr. Forbes to resign, was it to be in favour of Mr. Coates, or of Mr. Holland himself? In the latter case, we sympathise with him in his disappointment, but do not suppose that it was very severe. The "wholesale dishonouring of election pledges" to an extent unprecedented "in the history of any country" is another astonishing charge. When Mr. Snowden, , the most stalwart of Free Traders, nevertheless refused to touch the M'Kenna duties in his first Budget, this disregard of life-long prepossessions and election pledges in view of the unforeseen severity of the depression was accounted to him for righteousness. The Labour Government received credit of the same kind when it swallowed its Free Trade principles by accepting defeat at the hands of the House of Lords and let the dyestuffs duties stand rather" than aggravate the troubles of the country by a General Election. What election pledges the Forbes Government may be considered to have violated by the drastic proposals now before the country we do not know, nor do we greatly care. If nobody in Britain could foresee the coming blizzard at the time of her last General Election, there was certainly nobody to foresee it here when our own General Election was held six months previously. Some of the undertakings given by the contending parties in the darkness then prevailing have been rendered impossible by the new conditions, and all the others must be reconsidered from the standpoint of the safety of the State. The old issues and the old catchwords can no more be allowed to dictate present policy than if a war had intervened, and the Labour Party is not the only one that should take that point to heart. One feature, at any rate, of Mr. Holland's speech may be welcomed with unqualified satisfaction. No one, he says, will quarrel with the Primo Minister over his desire to balance his Budget. In view of what is taking place in Australia the recognition of this supreme necessity by our Labour Party is something to be thankful for. The party will not be split on the issues of repudiation and inflation, nor will it suggest that lo balance the Budget in three years will b.e soon enough. But to the methods favoured by the Government for meeting the threatened deficits the Labour leader offers an uncompromising .opposition. He takes special exception to the cut proposed in wages and salaries, without any corresponding cut in interest, rent, and profits. Tho decision to reduce wages, says Mr. Holland, is definite and emphatic, but the Prime Minister adopts a different tone when he talks about interest "Kates of wages must conic down," Mr. Forbes says, but apologetically lie makes what lit! terms "an earnest appeal to hanks, mortgagees, stock and station agents, etc., to review each lnmortgage case." . »« It is far

thu Prime Minister to explain why.he is content; only to appeal to moneylenders. Why has he not applied the samo legislative principle as in Hie, case ot' Public- servants and wage workers: The same point of view was represented in more picturesque language by the declaration of the Alliance of Labour that Hie- Prime Minister intends to lower the standard of living of the working people below the- fodder basis in the interests of the bankers, moneylenders, and bondholders, for, while lie proposes- to reduce wages, interest charges are to remain at their present high level. We do not ihink that Mr. Forbes has any desire to reduce the standard of living or that his proposals will have that effect, or that he has shown any bias against labour by his failure to reduce interest and other charges. Mr. Holland declares it to be "beyond question" that there has been no such fall in the cost of living as to justify a 10 per cent, reduction in wages, but the argument had been to some extent anticipated by the Prime Minister in his statement. He pointed out lhat whereas the cost of food in January, 1929, was approximately 49 per cent, above the cost in July, 1914, by December last the relative increase was only 37 per -cent., which means a fall of 12 per cent. Similarly, the "all groups" index fell during the period November, 1928, to November, 1930, by approximately 4 per cent., and a further fall has since taken place. If the figures are not yet complete or conclusive, it must be remembered that the general effect upon wages will be determined by the Arbitration Court, which will not be instructed to reduce them by 10 per cent, or any other proportion, but will merely be empoweerd to review existing awards "in the light of the present economic conditions." Referring to the decline in the cost of living to which the figures of the Government Statistician already testify, Mr. Forbes further argued that this decline would actually be stimulated by the action of the Government. A reduction in nominal wages, followed immediately by a further reduction in the cost of living, would, he said, leave the standard of real wages but little affected. . . . Tut Government is convinced that under present economic conditions it. is in the real interests of the workers themselves that nominal wages should be reduced, as otherwise business generally will stagnate, and there will bo little work for anybody. Another of Mr. Holland's contentions is that even' if the wage-reductions wero unavoidable the iirst condition should bo an all-round reduction in the cost of rentals, wearing apparel, foodstuffs, etc., but there is no proposal to legislate in that direction. The argument has a plausible sound, but if he were commissioned to prepare the necessary legislation he would surely have to admit that the task is impossible. Though this impossibility is.a sufficient excuse for the Government, the appeal made by Mr. Forbes to employers and others to play the game in passing on to the public the full benefit of the reduced wages emphasised a point of very great importance. His argument had been anticipated in part by the comments of Mr. Scullin on the 10 per cent, cut made by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court on the 22nd January:— Unless the reduction is immediately followed, by increased employment, the effect will be further to depress trade and industry. The employers represented to the Court that a reduction in wages would increase employment. The onus is now on them to give effect to their contention. Nothing could more seriously prejudice the prospects of the Government's policy thafi the impression that the workers and. consumers are not getting a fair deal.