LABOUR AND UNITED.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 300, 4 December 1929, Page 7

LABOUR AND UNITED.

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Y’our correspondent “Übique” seems very perturbed at the action of the Labour Party in refusing to involve the country m the expense of an early general election. The reason is very simple, for had they endeavoured to oust Sir J. Ward they would have prevented the large number of people who had recorded their votes in favour of the United Party from “having a fair run for their money.” The next strongest party in the House that would naturally replace the Government prior to another election were emphatically repudiated at the last election, so Labour had no alternative in keeping with its pledge to democracy other than to give the new Government a fair trial. Either your correspondent has a conveniently short memory or a peculiar sense of humour when he suggests a Labour-United Partycoalition in the House. The whole history of New Zealand politics since the advent of the Reform Party has been one of sham fighting between Liberal and Reform on the floor of the House, and then a mutual rendezvous in the division lobbies when the bells have rung. He cites the Hutt by-election as proof positive of the co-operation between U.P. and Labour, because the Auckland “Star” had advocated the withdrawal of the U.P. candidate. This paper in its wisdom is obviously of the opinion, an opinion very generally held, that the Hutt seat was held by the personality of Mr. T. M. Wilford rather than tlie merits or demerits of party issues. Hence the apparent realisation that the advent of a very strong personality in the form of Mr. W. Nash, the Labour candidate, lias practically assured the seat for Labour, must jiaturally give the U.P. Press very grave concern. The certainty or apparent certainty of defeat for the Government must react very strongly in the House and throughout the country, and the Auckland “Star” in its wisdom apparently believes that the only ■method of avoiding defeat is to withdraw the Government nominee. The, criticism'of the Labour members’ attitude towards the primage duty is to a certain degree justified, but my friend has very carefully omitted to state that it was submitted to the House as an appendage to the graduated land tax proposals, and to secure the major measure the minor had to be accepted as well. Reform is now claiming as a virtue its attitude on this particular question, when its vote was decided entirely by its efforts to protect the wealthy land-owner on the other important part of the measure.

I was amused to note the reference to the Civil Service “cuts” and the suggestion that the Reform Party was prevented from supporting Mr. Holland’s amendment because of its qualifying clause suggesting the method of raising the additional money. This is sheer hypocrisy for no other party has had the same facilities to restore them than Reform with its large majority during the years it held office in this country. The Labour Party has been consistent in its efforts on behalf of the Civil Service in an endeavour to secure the same protection as other workers possess m their awards, etc. May 1 again remind your friend that the cuts were made by a -Reform administration at the same time as concessions were given te the wealthy land-owners of the Dominion. Your correspondent further states that there are prevalent rumours of an amalgation between the United Party and the Labour Party. I can assure him that such rumours have not readied the local branch of the Labour Party yet, and savour more of Reform propaganda than fact. Should it be correct, the country would certainly be better served if the old Liberal members of the U.P. amalgamated witli Labour and the Tory section went over to Reform, for a two-party faction will at least prevent minority representation in districts similar to Hawke’s Bay.

My friend refers to “the constructive, progressive policy of the Reform Party.” We have had years of it now and the verdict of the people at the last election was a very decided “No! Thank you!”

I feel convinced from the tone of your correspondent’s letter that the linotype operator misconstrued his pseudonym; surely it should have read “Pique” and not “Übique.”— 1 am, etc., ( tt Hastings, 4/12/29.