The Evening Star THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1922. THE LABOR PROGRAMME.

Evening Star, Issue 18138, 30 November 1922, Page 6

The Evening Star THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1922. THE LABOR PROGRAMME.

“ Whrx I use a word,” said Humpty Dumpty, “ it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” So, when ho said “There's glory for you,” his hearers were expected to understand “that's a nice knock-down argument,” and the large word "impenetrability” was made a substitute Tor “W-e’ve had enough of that subject.” Even so words are used, apparently, by the New Zealand Labor Party. The explanations of its programme given by local candidates would be unintelligible, the worst Mud of joke, on any other theory. The irresponsive leaders of the Labor Party, we are gravely told, are the true successors of Radiance and Seddon. We can imagine how Mr Seddon, if he were alive to-day, ■would roar his repudiation of that suggestion ; but then lie would be unlikely to understand it. When the Labor speakers profess that the ideal for which they stand of the submergence of all identity and individual enterprise under one dead level of State coercion is the same thing as Liberalism, which was wont to imply the utmost freedom for everyone, it is obvious that they give a new meaning to the word “Liberalism.” So also, when they profess that the plain words of their land programme mean something entirely different from confiscation, the same principle must be supposed to be applied by them. The programme -distinctly provides -for i “ (1) State valuation of all privatelyowned land, such valuation to remain on record as the measure of the present holder's interest in the land. (2) That privately-owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State. (5) The owner shall have the right to surrender his landl on the valuation set out in aubclanse (1).” The meaning of that is, Mr Moes has said, that more people should be encouraged to go on the land. The meaning of it is, we have also been told, that no worker who happens to own his home need be afraid that, under a Labor regime, it would bo taken from him. The programme says nothing of taldng away the worker’s homo so far as its first occupancy is concerned; but it lays down, as clearly as words can do, that he would not be allowed to sell it except to tire State at the State's own earlier-made valuation, or to bequeath it to a child or widow at his death. Once he sold he would be unable to acquire another property, and no one who is without a section of his own -would be able to do more than rent one in the future. Sir Moss has declared that he stands “ positively opposed to confiscation.” It is obvious, however, that his parly’s great plans for the “socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange ” couldl only be mafia operative by the buying out of present owners, which would impose impossible burdens on the State, or in the manner condemned. “ Convey, the wise it call.” But “ socialisation ” itself may mean almost anything, Mr Sullivan, a past Labor member for Christchurch, has pointed out. “ To one man it means the State owning the industries and services, as it does the railways and the post office; to another it means either the workers in an industry owning and administering it themselves, or doing so in co-operation with the State or the employers; to others it means something like the Whitley Councils in England, ■where the workers have been given a voice with the employers on boards that control the industry. To eaSh individual and school of thought socialisation means something differentto ail, it is a signpost pointing out the road towards harmony and kindness in our industrial life.” No wonder Labor candidates are in difficulties when they endeavor to explain their programme.