The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, September 12, 1935. BOTH WAYS.

Grey River Argus, 12 September 1935, Page 4

The Grey River Argus THURSDAY, September 12, 1935. BOTH WAYS.

Feeling that publie opinion is “fed up” with the Government, its defenders are at pains to decry any alternative, especially

a Labour Government, and are forced in this effort to advance propositions which contradict each other. First it is said Labour’s proposals are too cosily, and will bankrupt ths country; but seconcdy, it is said there is no need to think Labour intends to enact its policy if given the opportunity. This is the ruse used yes lerday by our evening contemporary, which in one sentence says Labour would get money by heavy taxes and in another sen tenee that Labour would instead manufacture more money. This game of trying to ‘‘have it both nays” has been played out long ago even in politics. Apologists lor this administration ought to realise that when they say •‘easy money” is Labour’s goal, it is no good saying at the same time that this is simply higher

taxation. To assert Labour is merely insincere, and then that it is stubbornly determined to go too far or too fast, is to askpeople to abandon commn sense and believe what is nonsense. If Canada can guarantee her wheat farmers the prices they are now guaranteed lor all of their large output of wheat, surely the thing is not an impossibility where our staple products are concerned? If pensions for some invalids here are feasible, why not for others? Even the Government is reported now to realise that if ex-soldiers who have latterly developed invalidity are entitled to a pension —and everybody must admit it—other invalids are also deserving of consideration. A while ago Ministers and to-day their apologists, might be found repudiating such an idea as too costly. A really humorous instance of the “have it both ways” apologetics is a high tribute to the public intelligence paid by’ our contemporary in the statement, “if Labour wins at the general election, it will be in spite of its policy, and because it is not believed that any serious attempt will be made dur ing the Labour Government’s term of office to carry out the pre-election promises of putting the ‘policy’ on the Statute Book

within three years.” The- plain i significance of that assertion is ‘ that a Labour Government would ! deliberately ride for an early fall. I and leave things to drift as they | Lave been doing. As for the ■ complaint of inflation, w e have it now in effect, as our money is , worth oversea only three-quar- I ters f what it was before the ex-1 change manipulation. An addition of a quarter to the currency, I based on the national credit. I which in turn reposes on the national industry and production, would certainly not lower our oversea purchasing power one iota. Of course, it presupposes that tiie State would have control. and be thus able to prevent a bankers’ ramp. The refusal of credit to credit-worthy people would then be a thing of the past The Stale power has been used to depreciate our money on exchange. Banking machinery mayhave been used as the medium, but the cause and effect arc manifestly the policy of the State, because they ar e solely’ the design of the Government. The trouble is that the State influence is in the final analysis operating to day to lessen the ultimate power of the people over their medium of exchange, and to entrench private control more firmly than ever. It is said that the Labour Party would require more than one Parliament to draft its pro posed legislation, and yet th a' the result would be bad whethe r this were drawn up either ill or well! In other words, the suggestion is that we now live :n Utopia and that any change must be for the worse. That is the dogma which th e Governirent tries by’ every means to establish The people have a good test, how? ever, for that. They have only ’ to compare the actual state of the country with what it used to be, or with that of other countries The dogma might be reversed and be nearer the truth. Labour” opportunity is coming, but it if because of its policy, not in spiti of it, or because of the Government’s policy.