LABOUR POLITICS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 303, 20 November 1934, Page 6

LABOUR POLITICS.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—To anyone who knows anything - about reading a case between the lines of an article or document it is very amusing to see how ‘ One in the Know” is attempting to smother up his identity. Many have heard similar phraseology before. In last night’s issue he states that lie attended the annual meeting of the branch on a financial member s summons notice. Cut it out, old chap. Every person could be accounted _ for who attended that meeting. Now, sir, if it was a fact that this person borrowed someone else’s notice I ask you what manner of person would “One in the Know” be? Fortunately for lovers of fair play there are certain people who let the cat out of the bag. Why doesn’t he accept that challenge? I thought ho was so ceitain of his facts. Regarding the Labour Representation Committee, I should like to ask him certain questions. This time 1 want straight out answers and not abuse (1) Is it not a fact that in the middle of 1933, certain persons were withdrawn as the delegates from the branch? (2) Is it not a fact that these persons refused to vacate their seats and kept them in addition to the re-appointments made by the branch? (3) Is it not a fact at the annual meeting of the L.R.C. that certain persons were elected to official positions on that body who really represented no particular affiliation and thus violated the constitution of the N. So much for L.R.C. Hitlerism. ~ . . Now, “One in the Know,” is it not a fact that at the annual meeting of the branch -the voting for the election of president was thus: Mr EW. Ward 67, and Mr P. T. Robinson 14. For vice-president, Mr E. O. Bond 57 and Mr P. T. Robinson 24. The three delegates on the L.R.C. (Messrs Ward, Brodie and Hansen) also returned with tremendous majorities. The same position applies to the executive. If you belong to an organisation then the sporting thing to do is to take the decision of the meeting and not say, “Well, I was not even nominated for a position. As for the abuse of “Billiard Table, he certainly would be better occupied at his calling. _ After reading his letter I am hoping that I have never played him in the past. _Mr Bond will, no doubt, deal with him. I would suggest to “Billiard Table” that it is a dangerous practice to make misstatements. In closing I suggest “Watchhouse” knows what he is talking about and I trust he may give us a little more food for thought.— I am, etc., _ . LITTLE DAVID.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —In reading the small efforts of “Long Tack Sam” and “One in the Know” in to-night’s issue of your valuable paper I was reminded of the story of the snake who could turn into any colour that was placed before it. This was accomplished in turn with red, yellow, blue, etc., and then some wit suggested a tartan. The old snake turned and twisted, and in the effort finally bashed his brains out. I do not suggest that it would be possible for “Long Tack Sam” and “One in the Know” to go that far, but they certainly do disprove one night what they have written previously. I was particularly struck with the manner in which “One in the Know” went into reverse gear when he struck “Hill 1922.” Ah! it would be a stiff climb to tackle with the poor juice he has been running on this last night or two. There is no doubt that “1922” will fade into but a faint memory compared with what will happen in 1934. The workers, and when I use that term I certainly mean the useful people of a community 'who render service by hand or brain, will have the opportunity to decide the issue when the true facts are exploded. Nobody who thinks for himself is likely to be disturbed by the old old story of Bolshevik bogies. 1 am surprised at “One in the Know” sweeping the cobwebs off this old timer and bringing it out to public gaze. He is quite disturbed over the Prime Minister having to eat cold duck. I think if I remember rightly that 1 saw tlie local selection shoulder to shoulder with the Communists. I also remember being present at a meeting when the local selection pledged support in Havill’s gymnasium on behalf of the Labour Representation Committee to the anti-camp fight. There was a Communist in the chair that night, sir. How awful! Then came the ban on demonstrations and what happened ?• How did the voting on the City Council go? “One in the Know” might furnish me with the division list. Is there any likelihood of Mr Bond’s challenge being taken up? I am getting keen. Don’t disappoint me please. A little bird whispered in my ear to-day that there is to be a very important meeting of the L.R.C. on Wednesday evening next when an effort will be made to shut the branch. I don’t think the decision will be known in one night as there appears to be a long battle ahead. The bird also told me that the branch is going to have a very interesting meeting on Thursday night. Then comes the Opera House meeting and although I heard that Mr Savage will not be answering any questions on that occasion I suggest that the “boys of the village” may turn the tables and ask a few on local conditions. I was pleased to read in the Press that there are still accredited Labour speakers visiting the branch. Mr W. H. Olliver created quite an impression. I understand he represents tho Freezers’ Union on the Oroua L.R.C. Would your correspondents tell mo why local Freezers who were very good friends of the branch were disqualified from the local L.R.C. ? I would also like to know how many and what affiliations are represented and how many persons each represents? It seems a peculiar position if what I am told is correct, and that is that a huge political organisation is judged on an L.R.C. by representa-

tives of about 13 carpenters, 10 drivers, etc., and two persons* representing only themselves. It would appear that the Labour political machine needs overhauling and brought up to date.-—I am, etc., - * W ATpHHOU SE,*