THE LABOUR PARTY'S OBJECTIVE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23203, 29 May 1937, Page 16

THE LABOUR PARTY'S OBJECTIVE

TO THE EDITOR Sir.—l find it very difficult to follow the reasoning of. "Labour Again, which you quite rightly in your footnote term a diatribe, but one statement of his is rather appealing—that is that as far as the workers and shopkeepers are concerned the slump was a thing of the past from election day. If that is so, then I would suggest that Labour Again" should advise the Unemployed Workers, who are holding meetings of protest, to that effect. 1 would also advise "Labour Again that; l received £3 4s per week under the Tory Government, and it was when we launched on our period of so-called prosperity that the Labour Government decided that those with large families should be penalised for having them. Hence the reduction to £1 19s, which is Is per week less than is allowed a man and wife with no family. My main point of contention is, however, that the Labour Government merely, as far as I am concerned, redistributed the source from which I should get my income, and at the same time caused a rise in prices. I think I pointed out in my letter that the problem was one entirely of distribution, and that all Governments would be labouring Government.-; until it was solved. I would inform "Labour Again" that I have eight New Zea-land-born immigrants, and. according to Messrs Savage, Fraser, Barnard and Co., these are the best type. Mr Savage says, however, that he is only a simple man, and I most fervently believe him.—l am. etc., H 10.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—No wonder you were stirred to add your footnote to the letter by "Labour Again." In your place I should have done the same. I think he was only casting for a "nibble when he wrote such statements. Has he not seen in print almost every word and movement of Mr Semple and Dr M'Millan's alleged utterances? And has not Mr Nash's supposed inability in London been all faithfully reported. I even saw a few inches devoted to the report of the financial year's results. Mr Adam Hamiltion's statement was published, too, that the sustenance men were being paid too much. That was not Labour, but it was printed all the same. I

heard Mr Hamilton state that the unemployed were enjoying a fair standard of living, at a time when the poor wretches were lining up weekly for their ration of food and cast-off clothing. I thought at the time that he was sorry for them, and was trying to cheer them up. Adams have been known to do strange things. Was it not one of them who started all the world's bother years ago by shirking his share of blame? Mr Adam Hamilton seems to be imagining himself back in power. What he would gain by it I cannot imagine. I would not be a ruling politician for any consideration. I should like, however, to see some more writing by "Labour Again."—l am. etc., Ivy Nicholson.