A COUNCIL'S MANDATE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 130, 4 June 1931, Page 10

A COUNCIL'S MANDATE

. On a straight party vote the Christchurch City Council has reversed the action of the former Council mi making a ten per oent. cut in wages and salaries, and has also restored the payment of 15s 4d a day for unemployment relief workers. The new Council proposes further to raise a loan of £39,500, on which it hopes to receive a subsidy of £42,500 from! the Unemployment. Board' for relief works; One of the Labour councillors, when the restoration of the cut was being debated, stated his intention of submitting a scheme for a graduated cut in the higher salaries, with no reduction of any salary below £7 a week. These two proposals —borrowing, and cutting the higher salaries —may be accepted as the Labour alternatives to a general reduction of pay. The loan proposal is essentially unsound, though it has been adopted widely in New Zealand, inasmuch as it piles up for the future the burdens which should be carried at present. But possibly its adoption in Christchurch is feasible, as, we understand, Christchurch has- not as yet borrowed as heavily as Wellington for this purpose. The second method—making the higher officials pay. —has on the surface the appearance of justice, but it is really unjust. Local bodies, as well as other employers, pay, or should pay, according to the relative value of. the service. The man who receives £500 a year is paid that amount because his service is deemed worth twice as much as the man who is paid £250. If it is not worth twice as much there is good reason for revision of the scale, but if revision is undertaken because of; economic necessity, the relative positions should be maintained.' This is done when the £500 man is brought down to £450 and the £250 man to £225.

The main point of the Christchurch decision to which we would draw attention, however, is that it was made as the result of the election campaign. The Labour Party went to the polls promising to restore the cut, and Labour secured a bare majority. We do not question that, according to the general interpretation, Labour has what it terms a "mandate" for its action, though we may doubt whether the electors intended to give such a mandate when they voted as they did. But the result shows how popular feeling may be swayed by election promises and catch-cries. It should help lo demonstrate to politicians in the national field the risk that they run of confusion of issues in the General Election if they face the voters with the old party divisions. If Labour goes into the fight with a slogan, "No wage reductions," and Reform cries, "Lighter taxation," with a second slogan, "Blame United, not us," there may be such contusion in the result thai Labour will be able to claim a mandate when "no such mandate was ever intended.