POLITICAL MAILBAG

Evening Star, Issue 25956, 22 November 1946, Page 3

POLITICAL MAILBAG

THE WOMEN’S VOTE. “Elector” writes: —A . recent (pamphlet being distributed/at Labour candidates’ meetings says, amongst other things, “get your wife to vote Labour.” Evidently the votes of the .women are going: to give supporters of the. Government some concern, even where the husband is in favour of the Labour policy.' In this connection an article which appeared in. one of the women’s journals recently is well worth quoting from. It was to this effect: “ The vote of the housewife has always ■been ignored. ‘ Why?’ So say politicians. ‘ Women are not interested in politics. They’ll vote, as their husbands vote.’ This unfortunately has been only too true, and this is exactly the reason why the burden of many of our 1 ‘ improvements ’ falls on the women. The list of the housewives! legitimate grievances is a long one, but no remedy is in sight, unless the housewives themselves make it crystal clear that they insist that the Government must do their bidding* or make way for those who will. In exercising it properly, instead of meekly following the male lead, they can see to it that they' are no longer a section of the community which;is fair game for politicians to ride over rough shod.” :’;,The above’, is good advice, and if women of New Zealand will think for themselves and Vote accordingly, then I think the majority of them will cast their vote in favour of the Nationalist candidate. They are sick of the shopping difficulties, and they resent Mr Nash’s denial of their right of a free choice' in their purchases. They are tired- of the eternal shortages and they have “ had it ” as far as carrying home laden shopping baskets is concerned. By voting National the women of Dunedin will be able to retain all their present privileges, while getting rid of many of the irksome restrictions and controls. “ INTERJECTION NUISANCE. . Thus “ Truth Will Out ”: National Party -supporters have been loud in their condemnation of the Labour Party because a man who dared to interject at Mr Nash’s Dunedin Town Hall meeting was removed from the hall. The truth of the matter was that this man did not stop at interjections, but. tried to shout Mr Nasb down when he attempted to reply. The audience objected to this deliberate interruption, but Mr Nash said that the interjector was quite entitled to interject so long as he did not obstruct the meeting. The interjector continued to interrupt, however, and at last, when it was apparent that he did not want a. reply to his interjections, but wished only to obstruct the meeting by shouting above Mr Nash’s voice, the chairman warned this man that he would be removed from the hall if he interrupted again. This warning was of no avail, and it was necessary to remove the culprit in order that the 2,000 persons who did want to hear Mr Nash speak could do so. The National Party supporters ' have said nothing about the fact that an interjector at Mr Algie’s North-east Valley meeting was removed by the police, or that the National Party imported interjectors from other electorates to Mr P. G. Connolly’s Wakari meeting in order to make it appear that Wakari had turned anti-Labour. Three of these interjectors were known to reside, in the Mornington electorate and one in Dunedin North. ’

SHOW OF HANDS. From “ New Zealander ”: The only reply I wish to make to your correspondent, “ Hopeful,” is that I am not in the slightest concerned as to whether Mr Fraser has more to lose than gain by demanding a show of hands (I notice he has repeated the stunt at Hawera), nor am I interested in Mr Fraser’s “ courage,” but I am, with thousands of other electors, concerned at what amounts to a demand that electors declare publicly whether they are‘for or against. My contention is that the secret ballot box operates for that purpose. If Labour should be returned wc will all soon enough realise how little our private thoughts, opinions, and wishes count, but, “Hopeful,” that day is not yet, and after the 27th will be further away still, because free thinking men and women will place in power the National Party, whose foundation plank is “freedom.” PROMISES AND PERFORMANCES. E.C.S. writes (in part): In Tuesday’s ‘ Star ’ appeared a Labour advertisement addressed to electors under 30 stating the numbers unemployed during the slump and measures applied by the slump Governments; but divorced from any explanation of the great world crisis *of the slump years, the political conditions under which slump measures were applied, or any standard of comparison by which to judge them, and thus intended to convey a wholly misleading impression. In order to view the slump position in correct perspective it is only necessary to compare it with that exising in the comparable world crisis of the recent war. First, it should be pointed out that the slump Government' in office up to 1931 was elected in 1928 before any slump was even in sight, and so the leaders of it gave no election pledges as to what they would do in the case of a slump. The leaders of the second slump Government of 1931 to 1935 refused point blank to give any election pledges, but asked the electors instead for a blank-cheque authority to do anything they considered necessary about the slump, and the electors gave them that blank cheque, which they merely used, so that there was never any violation of pledges by them. Contrast this with pledges repeatedly given to the electore in the 1938 elections,, With the recent war already in sight (and preparations under way for it), the Labour leader in the name of his party stated that on no account would it impose . conscription for overseas servico without first seeking a specific ‘mandate from the electors. That election pledge was violated by Labour. In political morality Labour thus contrasts very unfavourably with the slump Governments. COMPLAINT OF CHAIRMAN. “ Fairminded ” writes: (Being an elector and a citizen of Green Island, I take very strong exception to the remarks of our mayor, Mr Boomer, at Mr Hudson’s meeting at Green Island. Our mayor lias occupied the chair for both parliamentary candidates at Concord and Green Island, and has been most impartial, and rightly so, seeing that in nis position as mayor he should represent the people as a whole. At the close of Mr Hudson’s meeting the mayor made reference to the depression period, when he, along with others, grubbed grass on the roadside, and had a bad time generally. So did I myself and many more, but for the mayor to state that if this crowd (meaning the National Party) got into power we would all be eating the grass was really incredible.

“ GANGSTER METHODS.” “Toleration” writes: “Hopeful, referring to the interjector being removed from Mr Nash’s recent Town Hall meeting, suggests the use of “ constructive logic ” against political opponents. It is a pity your correspondent did not make some attempt to act on his own advice before offering it to others. He refers to the interjector as being “ an ignorant person with a lack of responsibility, and respect due to & prominent Minister of the Crown. 5 * Mr Nash addressed the meeting in question not as a Minister of the Crown ex officio, but as a representative of the Labour Party seeking support for his fellow-candidates, and was entitled to the same courteous hearing as any other election speaker—no more and no less. Does your correspondent • suggest' a ■ different standard of conduct for a meeting addressed by a Minister of the Crown than that accorded to the Leader of the Opposition? I may say that I was present at Mr Nash’s meeting, and would like to draw attention to the fact that the first time an interjection was made there were cries of “ Pipe down,” “Chuck him out,” etc., from a few individuals (including two prominent Labour Party members), who are among the most persistent interjectors at National Party.meetings. There was nothing offensive in any of the remarks made by the interjectors at Mr Nash’s meeting, and certainly nothing to warrant his being ejected at the request of the “ very capable chairman.” At Mr Holland’s meeting the week before there were far more interjections, and Mr Holland did not seem to be upset in any way about them. On the contrary, he appeared to enjoy them, and gave back as good in return. Apparently the Labour speakers can’t “ take it,” in spite of the fact that they pose as champions of the doctrine of freedom of speech. Their application of the doctrine is more like the methods of Fascism than those of a democratic country. Apparently the conception of free speech by some members of the Labour Party is that it applies only when the speaker is on their side, and they do tbeir utmost to deny the same freedom to those who are opposed to them. There are still many people in Dunedin who remember the disgraceful incident at the Rt. Hon. G. iW. Forbes’s meeting in the Town Hall in .1931. There was no talk then among Labour supporters concerning the “ respect due to a Minister of the Crown.” LABOUR’S GUARANTEED FUTURE.

“Scot” is sceptical: Having read the ‘ Labour Guarantees the Future ’ booklet, I wish to correct the prices on page 6 under the heading of ‘ The Facts About Prices ’ and the statement that the housewife here can get far' more for her money than she could in most other countries, etc.' On comparing the prices with the United Kingdom, I, can say with certainty that the above statement is untrue, and herewith is the correct list for comparison : —Bread, United Kingdom 4£d, New Zealand s&d; butter, Is 6d, Is 6d; milk, 4d pint, 3d pint; flour, Is 4d 4 lbs, Is lOd 4 lbs; sugar, 4d, 4d; tea, 3s to 3s 4d lb, 4s lb; cheese, lid lb, Is 6d lb; potatoeSj Id lb, 2d lb. I could augment this list by numerous other items in everyday use, such as vegetables, etc., and can definitely state that the housewife in New Zealand pays more than the housewife in the United Kingdom. I fail to see how she is better off. BANK OF NEW ZEALAND SHARES. “ F.S.” writes: I listened to Hon. F. Jones ro taking over the Bank of New Zealand. He told his listeners that none of the shareholders took out their shares, showing the confidence they had in the bank. He never said the shareholders were jiaid 1\ per cent, to leave their money in the bank for a term. A fine 6tate of affairs giving 7\ per cent, for money and letting it out for 3ner cent. This is Socialism to perfection. FIRST RUNG OF LADDER. “ 444 ” thus: At North-east Valley Mr Walls stated that Mr Norman Jones was trying to get to the top of the ladder without stepping-on the first rung, and that he. Mr Jones, would be wise to complete his education. Those who have heard both candidates on the platform will be able to judge which one has the better knowledge ofthe affairs of the country. I would like to emphasise that Mr Jones’s education (as- Mr Walls calls it) was inter-

fered with because, as a . “ boy,” he went overseas and served some years and made some sacrifice that we might be free. During this period Mr Walls was fortunate enough to be on the ladder climbing to prosperity and what he' called “ independence.” THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. “ Spot ” Johnstone thus (much condensed) : At Mr P. G. Connolly’s meeting in the Wakari School on Wednesday last, he stated, on being questioned by a member of the audience, that in his opinion the workers in New Zealand bad a perfect right to strike in peace or in war. On a further question as to the number of strikes in New Zealand during the war years he stated “ very few.” This remark was endorsed by many members of the audience. The romark by the writer, that, “these strikers should be classed as traitors,” met with hostile reception from the audience. The writer disagrees with Mr , Connolly, and his contention'’ is borne out by a mass of figures appearing in both papers, under the heading ‘ Industrial Harmony,’ with the suggestion at the bottom that “ For goodwill in Industry—Vote Labour on November 27.”

The correspondent proceeds to quote extensively from these figures, a few ! of which are: For the period 1926-35, 319 disputes, with, 59,981 involved; 1936-45, 816 disputes, with 165,755 involved; war years (1940-45), 583 disputes, with 119,920 involved. The figures for the war years (he says) would indicate . that Labour’s claim for “Industrial harmony” is mere poppycock, in view of the undisputed fact that the men in uniform on holiday overseas, and- mobilised in New Zealand but not taking an active part in industry, were probably in excess of 100,000. Owing to the somewhat peculiar regulations of the Army, forbidding compulsory unionism of soldiers, these hundredodd thousand soldiers, jailors, airmen, Waafs, and Waacs, were deprived of the joy of striking during a total war, thereby decreasing the number of disputes from the probable four-figure total to the modest one of 816.