TWO VIEWPOINTS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXI, 27 October 1928, Page 9

TWO VIEWPOINTS

POLITICAL CONTROVERSY AND THE PRESS hollowing are the views of two strong party papers on'.one aspect of the present political situation. Says the “Lyttelton Times” (Liberal): Referring to Sir Joseph Ward, Air .Stewart said that “like Joseph of old lie had a coat of many colours.’,’ Wo have never heard it argued that Hie particular colour or colours of that garment detracted in any way from its usefulness as a coat, and we would point out that the coat he referred to was used by those who liked not Joseph, to deceive other parties, so that Air Stewart must proceed warily or he will become suspect. And the reference was the more dangerous because those who were thus deceived were compelled to send to Joseph for assistance in their extremity, and a Dunedin audience could be relied upon to know that fact. Undoubtedly the Reform Minister has chosen a reference that is very .unfortunate for his purpose. Of his very- general and strangely unconvincing criticism of the scheme advocated by the leader of the United Party there ’is little to be said. ‘To lend vast sums at less than market rates,” he remarked, “would only produce fresh inflation of land values and recreate the artificial conditions from which the country is just emerging.” Well, who created those conditions? The Reform Party has been in power for years, but while it may refer to “artificial conditions” nothing is more sure than that it would deny vigorously any responsibility for that state of affairs. What this Government wants the electors to believe is that while these adverse conditions were the result of developments over which it had no control—the Prime Minister said as much when he spoke here—the improvement recorded of late is the outcome of statesmanlike measures that “have brought the ship of State into calmer waters.” But they cannot have it both ways. The same morning the Christchurch “Press” commented: The United Party’s proposal to lend vast sums of money at less than market rates would not merely add to the burden of taxation, but would produce a new inflation of land values, and, as Mr Stewart says, “recreate the artificial conditions from which the country is just escaping.” The Labour Party’s policy is even more crudely destructive and waste: ful. In the face of great difficulties—a period of depression and unemployment for which the Government was not responsible, and an incessant demand by the public, backed up by the Opposition Parites, for increased borrowing and spending—the Minister for Finance lias been striving to check the growth of loan •expenditure and he has had, in the circumstances, no small measure of success. What the United Party proposes is that the country should throw prudence, and even sanity, to the winds, and borrow 70 millions sterling in addition to the money required for the ordinary extensions of public works. There was a time, perhaps, when such a rash proposal as Sir Joseph Ward’s might have been accepted by the public, but the public has learned much in .the last decade or two, and it will regard that proposal as a sound reason for having nothing to do with the United Party. When he came to deal with Air H. E. Holland’s criticism of the Government’s financial policy, Mr Stewart found that what he had’to answer was the preposterous charge that the Government is pampering the rich man and grinding down the poor! The Government’s policy has actually been the exact opposite of that. The taxes on the larger incomes have been greatly increased, and the trend of indirect taxation has -been towards easing the duties on such commodities as are in common use. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the Opposition Parties could not have chosen a less hopeless line of attack than the financial one. Those of their bombs which are not mere fuse and smoke explode in their own hands. And yet this is almost the only line of attack ■they have attempted.