Correspondence Rival Policies

Manawatu Times, Volume 63, Issue 39, 16 February 1938, Page 6

Correspondence

Rival Policies

(T 6 the Editor). Sir, —I see a couple of correspondents are very annoyed over your leading article of February 5. 1 refer to Mr. Ernest Petty and “Socialist.” Well, Mr. Editor, you needn’t worry over anything they have to say. You can take it from me your editorial was all right, and hundreds beside me think so, too. Mr. Ernest Petty’s hysterical outburst was just twaddle from beginning to end, so I won’t waste any time over him. But “Socialist’s” letter calls for some remark. Ho wants to force upon us the idea we are living in a sort of elysium since the present party came into power. If he is only speaking for himself, well and good, but I can assure him I won’t 1 have him speaking for me. Thousands of others outside the “one big union” won’t either. As Mr. Frank Goldberg very concisely put it, “though there was a semblance of prosperity in New Zealand, there was a general lack oi confidence, and a pessimistic outlook in business circles.”

Exactly, and well there might be when we consider the experimental legislation put through by a clique that prior to their election had given no serious thought as to how their votecatching promises could be carried out. The result is nothing but disputes and unrest from one end of the Dominion to the other. It is marvellous how men with no other qualification than the gif» of the gab get into Parliament, and from then on are adjudged lit to run a country, when in private life they couldn’t run a fowlyard. Well might the Labour Party fall down on their marrow-bones and thtink Mr. T. C. A. Hislop for placing them in the position they find themselves in to-day. . Had there been no third party standing at last election Labour would have got in all the same, but they would have had to face an Opposition that could not be ignored. They wouldn’t be doing a fraction of the cackling they are at present. “Socialist” is worried that the National Party in power would undo all that has been done as soon as they got the chance. Yes! and quite a lot needs undoing, too. It’s all very fine a party toadying to those they expect to keep them in power, such as the “I won't works” of the waterfronts, the rabble that in Wellington marched along smashing the windows of shops, the never-satisfied civil servants, and the equally neversatisfied small farmers.

Strange as it may seem, I hold there are sane people outside these bodies that have rights as well. But these people have long lost confidence in any utterance of our blarney stone-kissing Premier, who goes about the country telling-everyone not to be afraid. The small property owner for one knows all about that. He was the one singled out for special treatment. And, though all workers had cuts restored and wages increased, legislation was passed to debar the property-owner from any participation whatever in the artificial prosperity. Notwithstanding, he had through the depression allowed his tenants to pay just what they felt they could until times got better.

A Cabinet Minister landlord stated recently that he expected his tenants to pay more now that their wages had been increased, and the Public Trust Office has taken up the same attitude. And they get away with it. The political catch-cry of “people starving in the midst of plenty,” is on a par with “Socialist’s” dictum that “some of our women were forced (during the previous Government’s regime) to sell their souls to maintain their bodies.” Alas! Was it only under the CoatesForbes Government that such a thing happened? Women have done so from time immemorial, and will continue to do so, even under the most beneficient of Labour Governments.

Here’s another gem: “The Labour Party has brought joy and gladness where misery and suffering existed before. It will take a lot of the * ‘ garden party” politics to help people forget the sufferings of the past.” The former part of the statement no doubt accounts for so many letters to the Press from women complaining they are no better off, for though wages have been increased so has the price of ail household necessaries. To-day wages and costs are just in the position of a dog chasing his own tail—tho vicious circle; And when you come to think of it,

“garden party” politics are no worse than “carrying tenants’ furniture into State houses” politics. Votes aro the aim in each case. Another germ “The National Party stands for the making of profits, and damn the men. ” Just so. And tho Labour Party stands for stopwork, go slow, more pay, and damn the employers. So here again both parties are equal. Mr. Editor, the last paragraph of “Socialist’s” letter is just rubbish. Neither Labour nor National merit tho “high lalutin’ ” indulged in there. Both are out to gain the greatest number of votes at the next election—and that’s all. Each could sing with equal truth were it bo disposed:

‘lt ain’t by principles nor men, My prudent course is steadied; I scent which pays the best, and then Goes in for it bald-headed.”

Why, I seem to remember, one of the greatest statesmen New Zealand has ever produced, and whose heart consistently bled for the working man for very many years. When he died he left an estate of £367,000. I have a lot more to say yet, Mr. Editor, if only “Socialist” will give us some more to go on with. Perhaps Mr. Ernest Petty would like to return to the charge also. —I am, etc.,

“ANTI-HUMBUG.”

are the main cause of our better times and this is due to greater prosperity in Britain. Ycit your correspondent asks us to belie vo that these better prices are due to his party legislation. Did this legislation also raise the price of Australian anc! Argentine wool? Did ;it also bring about the greater prosperity in Britain to which our better times are mainly due? ‘“Socialist’s” final accusation that the National Party stands for injustice, untruth, misery, stagnation, greed, dishonesty and slavery is self-condemnatory and is so grossly untrue that it condemns rather than helps his cause.—l am, etc., AJAX.