The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 26th, 1925. FOUND WANTING.

Hokitika Guardian, 26 June 1925, Page 2

The Guardian And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times. FRIDAY, JUNE 26th, 1925. FOUND WANTING.

Thk “usehold" tenure which t-lio Labor party lias been making a plank in its policy is not finding favor. This is not surprising, tor the strict application of the proposal to take hand held but not in use, was sheer confis ntion. This, of course, might he watered down hy degrees of use, hut that uncertainty would lead to possible abuses, and the ultimate effect, it is conceivable, would he a fiasco. In any case the details of the tenure were never completely worked out, probably necause of the evident weaknesses which disclosed themselves upon a serious consideration of a tenure of such a nature. But. the policy was tried out at Franklin as far as it was possible and the voting in that election showed that weighed in the balance of public opinion, the land policy of the bid.or party was found wanting. As to this conclusion (while there can he no possible doubt as to the result ol' the polling itself) bahor is inclined to he divided in its views of the effect of the election on the new plank the party has added to its political policy. However, according to a correspondent at Auckland, if Mr W. J. Jordan, Labour member for Manukau. can he taken as spokesman for the Labour Party then the policy of usehold has been dropped. The policy has been submitted to Franklin and rejected, and .Mr Jordan says his party will l>ow to the decision of | the great majority. That view of the result is not taken up Mr M. J. .Savage, M.P.. for Auckland West, a much more responsible member of the party. Asked if Mr Jordan was announcing the party’s decision, Mr Savage said, '“‘Not on your life. It would he ridiculous to suppose that because one electorate had rejected the policy it would he dropped from the Dominion programme.’’ His party's job would ho to make people understand the policy, to edmate them hy pamphlets as to its true nature. Ho was sure many in Franklin dlid not- understand it. and of these there were some who did not want to understand, Iteeause they had made their money out of land spe< illation. which Labour's policy was designed to iheck. Mr Jordan had not expressed the opinion of the party and there was no danger of “usehold" being dropped. Mr Jordan’s statement as published in the Auckland “Star” is as follows : —"Mr .T- S. Montgomerie fought, the election on Labour’s land policy and the policy had been rejected hv the electors. The Laliour Party had asked a question, had received a. reply and would bow to the decision of an overwhelming majority. In the last- contest of the last century the Liberal Party in Britain tested many electorates and fought election? on the

Homo Rule question. Early in this century Mr George Lansburv resigned hi.s sent to contest it again on the "Oman suffrage question. He was defeated and his party adopted the decision of the people. Mr Baldwin in 122-') submitted the question of Preference or Free Trade to the electors at a general election. His policy was rejected and the suggested measure of Protection was accordingly abandoned and would remain in the background until the question was again submitted to the people at an election or referendum. The Labour Party’s policy of au improved and contributory pensions system, improved Civil Service conditions. Slate medical service, invalidity insurance and provision for dealing v. ith the housing and unemployment j i-oldcm had not been put- to the electors hut would he shortly, and if the l.ahour Party were returned on that occasion it must deal with those questions alone. It would be an absolute broach of trust to introduce another matter which had been rejected bv the people. We Ice] sure,” concluded Mr .lordan, “that the quality of either candidate in Franklin was not questioned, neither wore alternative land policies submitted. It was a stranght out question of for or against then Labour land policy, and the electors voted against it. The decision is quite acceptable and should be to all concerned.'’ Mr Jordan while not as prominent a Labour niemlier as Mr Savage, is none the less very emphatic in his s| iilemoni. That being on record means that as lar as lie is concerned he has burned all his bridges, and will linil a difficulty in re-aligning himself, say with Mr Savage, it the land policy of the nsehold is to remain a plank. The division of opinion among the prominent members of tbe Labour part v brought about by tin* ready acceptance of the Franklin verdict, seems to suggest that the Labor party itself is not at one in regard to so extreme a proposal as the .application of the nsehold. That division of opinion will go a considerable degree iurtbor in the removal of so remarkable a proposal from the poli.y on which the country will he deciding in a few months' time.