The Times TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1943. The Scourge of Fear

Manawatu Times, Volume 68, Issue 224, 21 September 1943, Page 4

The Times TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1943. The Scourge of Fear

Judging from, the Labour spokesmen’s constant emphasis on the depression it seems clear that the party is endeavouring to drive electors into blindly supporting the Government with the scourge of fear. If not by direct statement then by implication the people are being told that failure to return Labour rntist result in dire calamity, that the replacement of Labour by any other Government would see an end to all progress in the Dominion, a “grinding of the faces of the poor in the dust,” the loss of all social security backing for the unfortunate or aged, a loss to the Dominion’s war effort—and altogether that New Zealand would never be the same again.

In so urging upon the electorate this threat of calamity the Labour Party choses deliberately to ignore all historical developments. It dues not show an atom of modesty nor even of commonsense. Its attitude is in most marked contrast to that of the leader of the National Party and the pary’s spokesmen generally. These in their fairmindedness will frankly admit that quite an amount of Labour’s policy and actions have been good. They condemn the Government on matters of principle, and in general because they think it is inclined to go altogether too far and has also shown incompetence in the management of the country’s affairs. That is reasonable comment and criticism.

But to return to the attitude of the Labour spokesmen. Let this be checked with the recordings of history. Not tuitil 1924 did Great Britain ever see a Labour Government and right until this very day political Labour has exerted very little influence on the social economics of the Motherland. Yet would anyone make the claim that there had been no advancement in social legislation in Great Britain during, say, a century past. Actually there had been remarkable progress made in every field, whether concerning child welfare, unemployment insurance and sickness benefits, regulation of hours and wages, and all the other appurtenecs of a modern code.

Coming then to our own country. Consider that for 95 years, from 1840 to 1935, New Zealand had never seen a Labour Government. Yet would anyone deny that during that first century of our history New Zealand’s social legislation ranked with the foremost in the world. A record attained before ever Labour came to power. Actually this Dominion had in vogue about 90 per cent, of Social Security before that title was invented. Neither here nor anywhere else has Labour a monopoly of goodwill toward the people, of humanitarian instinct or of plans to implement it.

The past century has seen a worldwide growing comprehension of: “I am my brother’s keeper,” as proper and practical statescraft—a principle made realisable not alone through the growing humanitarianism of the age but through increasing jiowers of economic production. If the income of this country was so low as to provide only 10s a week for everybody, no Government could be generous with pensions or any other Social Security payments. The foundation for all such—-indeed, the first requisite—is to have a thriving productive economy. You must first have the income before you can be generous'with it. And by income is not meant one crcated by inflating the currency, but an income represented by material goods and services.

A party that endeavours to stampede the voter into supporting it by depicting a bogeyman in the Opposition does not show high respect for the public’s intelligence. That the Labour Party should in this age continue such tactics does not gain respect for the intelligence of its personnel. There arc no grounds whatever for electors to feel the slightest misgivings us to a change of Government bringing an end to the security that may be now enjoyed. Rather is there every reason to welcome such a change as promising a richer, fuller and freer life for everyone.