THE LABOUR PARTY AND THE DEPRESSION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23578, 15 August 1938, Page 15

THE LABOUR PARTY AND THE DEPRESSION

TO THE EDITOB Sir, —Your correspondent “J. D. M. ’ appears to be in complete ignorance of the principles of the Labour Parly, when he questions the refusal of its members to accept an invitation, in 1932, to join with the Reform and Liberal Parties. in , forming a Coalition Government to steer the country through the depression. It was obvious at the time, and was proved later, that this merging of the two abovementioned parties did not indicate the forming of a true Coalition Government, but the return, under a cloak and new name, of the old Reform Party, which had been rejected at the previous elections, and, as the policy of this party was long hours and slave wages, the Labour Party could not retain its principles and at the sajne time lend its support to a party renowned for its suppression of the wage earner. Any intelligent reader is aware that had Sir Joseph Ward lived the Liberal Party would never have joined forces with the Reform Party, yet one would deny that Sir Joseph Ward had the interests of the country and its citizens at heart. Had the Labour Party lent its support to the Coates-Forbes-Hamilton combination it would have had no move control of the government of the country than it had from the Opposition benches, and by linking its name to such a policy of destruction and suppression of the working classes it would have forsaken all claims to go to the people as a political party with a constructive policy. “J. D. M.” ironically suggests that Mr Savage could have put into effect his policy of insulation had he accepted the invitation of the Reform Party. To suggest even that any measures put forward by the Labour members would have been considered, much less supported, is really fantastic when we consider the past record of the Reform Party. The next point which J. D. M. endeavours to make is that the Labour Party, by standing aloof, forsook its claims to Christian government. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the majority of thinking electors, the very opposite was the true position. The Labour Party members must surely have been blind to all Christian doctrines had they joined a party which caused such widespread distress ana brought into being unemployment, soup kitchens, clothes drives and emergency taxation, which “ J. D. M.” sarcastically mentions, and slave camps and slave wages, which he has omitted. If care for the aged and infirm, work for the able-bodied, and payable prices for primary products are not Christian measures, then there is no such thing as Christianity, and all the teachings of the churches are “ hot air.” The Labour Party has done all this since it gamed the Treasury benches. Instead or being, as “ J. D. M.” states, as far from the teachings of the Master as east is from west, the policy of the present Labour Government is definitely nearer than any policy since the days of Richard John Seddon. —I am, etc.. Not Fooled. Hyde. August 13.