The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1928. HOW MR. HOLLAND CAME TO GIVE THE WHOLE SHOW AWAY!

Gisborne Times, Volume LXVIII, Issue 10738, 8 November 1928, Page 4

The Gisborne Times PUBLISHED DAILY THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1928. HOW MR. HOLLAND CAME TO GIVE THE WHOLE SHOW AWAY!

It is open to grave doubt if Mr Coleman will thank Mr, Pearson for interposing on his behalf in connection with tha charge made by this journal that Labor’s land policy foi the current election campaign am ounts to a daring piece, of poliOeal trickery. What we have pointed out is that Labor’s proposal to allow the right of private ownership in property to stand is quite at variance not only with what that party prorjM>sed -three-years ago, .vt». -.-that -pid--vat.oly-opuieil land should not tie sold except to the State, •ffufc also with the objective of the party, which is ‘“the socialisation of the ■ means of production, distribution and exchange.” Mr. Pearson says that every political pm'tv changes its policy to meet the advancing education in ltd own and the public mind. Just so. But will he answer this question: “Is it a square deal oil the ‘ part of any party to have a platform at variance with its objective ?” Mr Pearson also makes the point that a candidate is morally hound to adhere to the policy laid down by the party selecting him. As far as Mr. Coleman is concerned, however, he, like all other Labor candidates, has pledged himself to honor a land policy which is in direct contradiction to an objective which, lie lias also rigidly bound himself to uphold! Nobody, we should say, realises better than Mr. Pearson that such is, in truth, the actual fact*- If anybody should imagiile that those who framed the special attenuated land plank that is being used by tho Labor Party for tho purposes of the present election did -not.’know wliat they were doing, he or she should read the report in tho New Zealand Wor- • ker of tlie dirmissiou that took place last ye ay on tho proposal to amend tlie plank. Mr. Hudson (Hawke’s Bay General Labourers’ Union), for example, protested that what was proposed amounted to sacrificing the Party’s principle of the public ownership of all land to expediency! In order to allay the alarm of Mr. Hudson'arid jOf Rev.® Mr. Archer,, in particular, Mr. Savage, M.P., however, pointed out that recognition of the rights of owners would not preclude the. State from acquiring (presumably all the lands of tho Dominion). Tlie whole show was, however, . subsequently given away by Mr. Holland,, the Parliamentary leader for tile Labor Party, after the new land plank had been passed and the question of the need to secure an adequate supply of fertilisers at the lowest possible cost .to farmers was under consideration. V “There were,” ho said, “two alternatives- —either to wait until nationalisation of the land V was accomplished! before beginning I to build up production possibilities, or .doing it now”! If..this means anything at all, it means, of course, that, if Lq-bor ever got into power, land nationalisation would at once, J ba; pushed to; the'.forefront of its programme—despite what is contained in the‘party’s new ,land l plank about “the full recognition of owners’. interests) in all lands.” . 'That recognition,, it is p.laiil, is' intended to. to only of a very •temporary 'character! .