COST OF LIVING.

Evening Star, Issue 22881, 12 February 1938, Page 2

COST OF LIVING.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —In reading Mrs Herbert’s letter in to-night’s 1 Star’ i have tried to understand just why she wrote in reply to Mr Hargest. It appears to me that her only_ reason is to tell your readers that she is a supporter of the Labour Party, no matter what it does—“my party right or wrong.” Am I col-recti' Otherwise what object had she in writing? Usually one expects the subject matter to be questioned, but Mrs Herbert has not attempted to do so. Win-? . Will Mrs Herbert kindly check up on the comparative prices given by Mr Hargest and point out to your readers if any item quoted has been over-stated? If the figures are correct, and are taken to represent the rise in the cost of living, they show an increase of 27 per cent. Did the leaders of the labour Party promise us this during the last election campaign? I think not. Mr Jones, at Cargill’s corner, was very emphatic, when questioned, that his party had machinery which would prevent the cost of living from rising. Mrs Herbert says “ During the depression food and goods were plentiful, . . . but the people did not have the money to buy.” Is the position any different to-day ? Food and goods are still plentiful. The increase in the cost of living is greater than the increase in wages and salaries, so that the worker is not any better off in that respect than during the depression period, and fruit is still being dumped, coffee burned, cotton ploughed in, etc., etc., because the people lack purchasing power. That is an answer to such statements in Mrs Herbert’s letter as:— “The people have , greater spending power,” “ the housewives now have a larger spending power.” An increase in ■wages is not necessarily an improvement in the standard of living, as Mrs Herbert very well knows and the Labour Party is finding out. Mrs Herbert declares that there is a strong organised front on behalf of the Labour Government. That is, necessarily, a matter cf opinion, hut let not Mrs Herbert nor the Labour Party fool themselves into tie belief that the “ organised front ” is as strong as it was just prior to the last election. Before the last election the Labour Party, by means of its msnifesto, promised to_ solve the unemployed problem, and increase the standard of living, without any increase in fixation or the National Debt. Is the Government even moving in the direction of this ideal? It will be useless to scy that these promises could not have leen carried out. I believe Mrs Herbert knows, and certainly Mr Munro knows, the method by which these promises could have been kept. No, Mr Herbert, if the Labour Party has a majority after next election it will not be because of its strength, but rather because of its opponent’s weakness at that time.—l am, etc., » February 11. Disappointed;