TRADE UNIONS AND THE LABOUR PARTY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19970, 11 December 1926, Page 14

TRADE UNIONS AND THE LABOUR PARTY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr Tennent urges the trade unions to sever their connection with the Labour Party, and alleges that the unions got more favourable legislation in the good old days before the Labour Party became a menace m the land He does not explain how the Labour Party exercises this malign influence, but he lays down that it does so. “I think it may be safely said,” writes Mr Tennent, “that trade unions exercised greater influence in the nouse before there was a Labour Party than since.” He artlessly adds, “It is not necessary to explain why.” This process of assuming a diputable state of affairs and then proceeding to moralise on it is hardly conducive to public enlightenment, although it may serve your correspondent as a convenient hook on which to hang a few observations concerning the Labour Party, The fact remains that Mr Tennent has not attempted to connect the Labour Party with the alleged loss of influence by the unions: nor are some of his othci statements any more to the point. With out laying any foundation for his position, Mr Tennent ascribes irritation strike* to the machinations of the Labour Party, If Mr Tennent knows these things _ are done and thinks them evil, he should indicate the source of his knowledge. There are several innocent misrepresentations of fact in Mr Tennent’s letter. I shall deal with one of them. He writes, “The Labour Party does not like the idea of being killed in a war in defence of its country, but it does not object to a bloody revolution in which it hopes to come out top dog.” Now, many member? of the Labour Party do like the idea of being killed, or at any rate of killing the other man, in defence of their country, but the Labour Party has not yet, I believe, taken up a definite position in the matter The statement, however, that the Labour Party does not object to a bloody revolution is false and unjustified.—l am. etc., G. M. Cleghoen. Bclgrav© Crescent, Roslyn.

Sxr, —The correspondence on the above subject has shown how simple the solution of all the questions which disturb our body politic really is. It had not occured to me before. It there is insufficient housing or unemployment or strikes, etc., blame the Government or the capitalist. If you want a heaven on earth, why, let us have Socialism. Of course. Socialism would Settle some questions, as it has done in Russia, where the striker and the unemployed are shipped off to Siberia. The building trade unionist would not be allowed to restrict the number of his apprentices or to get 23s a day; he would have to do what ne was told, «nd possibly houses would be cheaper. I am not sure about this. I understand, however, that the rate of wages is 4s or 5s a day. Perhaps your correspondents will set me right about this also. It would be a great help in solving all cur difficulties if the combined trade union and Labour Party would tell us how soon they propose to establish Socialism, whether by revolution or kinder methods. If it is to be quite soon, we could_ get it over quickly by burning the shipping, banks, and a few other things, and, there you are, we would be Socialists all in a jiffy. We could divide out the cows, sheep, and pigs, and when we had eaten them up we could build whares of sods on the banks of the streams and live on eels and pounded fern root. The ladies might have to do without silk stockings, but they could change the fashion in hats by using flax or raupo. I should strongly advise the ladies to join in the movement; it is all so simple; we would get back to Nature, and oi course need not work unless we felt inclined to. If, on the other hand, the combined parties are going to give us reasonable notice, which is always expected, and they decide to defer drastic action till, say, the year 2000 (it is just as well to make it a round number), it might bo as well to make things as pleasant as we can in the meantime. I have heard Labour men from different parts of the world, even from Australia, say that New Zealand was the workers’ paradise, but perhaps they were ignorant—you never know—so instead of burning the banks and the capitalists this year or next, we might just as a recreation consider how we can avoid unemployment and a few other things. Being a retired farmer, I have a way of looking at some things from a farmer’s point of view. I know that in the sale of our produce we have to compete with all the countries of the world—countries in which the scale of wages is from 5s to 10s per day, instead of, as in New Zealand, from 14s to 23s per day. We are not a self-contained country like the United States The money received for our produce is the wage fund of the Dominion; it is the money available to buy the goods in the shops.’ etc. When the value of our produce falls the wage fund falls in harmony. If the scale of wages is higti and the fund is distributed amongst a few highly paid trade unionists then there must be unemployment amongst the many. To (he extent that the farmer is hindered and harrassed by strikes, hold-ups, eic., the wage fund is diminished and as the farmer has to accept the world’s price for his produce and has to pay for everything on the highest scale, his position is becoming in many cases desperate. In most instances he cannot afford to pay the wages asked, and in consequence the land in many places is going back into a state of Nature As a consequence of this the general wage fund is lessened. Might it not be worth while for the members of the Labour Party to consider this and other miestions seriously, perhaps with benefit to themselves ntuLothers.—l am, etc., W. J. Texnext. Roslyn, December 10.