THE "USEHOLD" USELESS?

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 127, 25 November 1935, Page 10

THE "USEHOLD" USELESS?

Jv claim has been made on benalf of the Labour Party in this election that it is the' only party that has not changed its name. Comparing that claim with the facts reminds 'one of the cartoon in the early post-War years of Mr. Lloyd George greeting the French Premier (of the day) with the words "Never the same man, but always the same policy," and the Frenchman's retort to Mr. Lloyd George: "Always the same man, but never the same policy." LahojixZHZirEllame^ the same as before it thought of guaranteed prices for farmers; but wKere 's thj^_cJ.cLZ^kxL_J^heis»_Jfor exampley-is-^sehuld" juuwj^^lf" it were not for Mr. Chapman we might have forgotten "that Labour ever had a land—policy: —-Apparently, however, Laj)p.ur_Jias-a- land-policy .still and one that,, according .to..Mr. Chapman, will "by_eliminating speculation be of immense advantage to the producer; will enable farmers,to~ob-tainjand-at; payable prices, and will give a. great impetusJto.'.lKe-farming industry." "But what is it? Is it '^usefrold" with ~ tenure""'depeifdeht• upoii "the judgment of some authority as to whether the occupier is making full productive use of his land, and with restriction of the right to dispose of the property except through the State? Twfi points in the T,qfrnj ] ir_pr.1 I Vy guaranteg.d-Krices and the adjustment of mo,rtggges^ on the basis of _ these prices, are intenHed_to attract the farmerf Have these points a barbed hook, at present concealed, -in the form of a land policy which will be a step towards bringing the farm under State control? The subject is one of great moment, but brief mention in Wellington North (where there are no farms) seems to be all the attention it has had. Last year the Labour Conference at Christchurch rejected a proposal (which came from Wellington North) to take "community created values" by imposing a tax of 5 per cent, on the unimproved value of land. The remit was defeated because delegates felt that the proposal would deprive workers who owned their own homes of their savings. So it would; and so also would any form of "usehold" tenure impair the farmer's title to the property occupied. But if Labour hajjecided^that the "uselioTd'' is useless as a voteis_jhis policy d\s-carded,-or o"nty~conveniently- mislaid for the clerfion neriod?