POLITICAL CRITICISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23885, 12 August 1939, Page 19

POLITICAL CRITICISM

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —When I wrote in an earlier letter that a large section of Labour politicians and supporters suffered from a form of inferiority complex, whereby all criticism of the party’s policy was construed as animated by party politics, I only stated a phenomenon which was obvious to the unbiased observer. The animosity directed towards the Farmers’ Union is a case in point. No one doubts that other organised unions are fighting solely for their own interests, and to impute therefore, that the Farmers’ Union is exerting its influence in the interests of some political party, rather than of its members welfare, bespeaks, to say the least, an ungenerous and narrow outlook. I do not wish to cast reflections on any individual, but a speaker is judged by his utterances. . . , I should like to correct, in the best of feeling, certain rather emotional statements of Mr G. J. Brooker. on the subject of guaranteed price propaganda. Mr Brooker hopes that I now appreciate the difference between * a noint blank refusal to reduce costs and “ a sympathetic hearing but no definite offers of assistance which were acceptable to the farmers.” The sympathetic hearing does not soften the farmers’ disappointment very much, and the noint blank refusal was made by the Prime Minister in a later statement to the press, not to Mr Mulholland at the time of the interview I do not blame the Prime Minister overmuch, as I have cherished no illusions as to his party’s policy The granting of a Royal Cbmmisison was as great a concession as could be expected and sheep farmers are duly grateful for it It would be unwise however, to expect too much as a result of its findings There has never been a Royal Commission in this country yet to my knowledge that has had its recommendation's adopted in full With regard to the resolution dealing with the financing of machinery for farmers. 1 think Mr Brooker is rather hasty in his condemnation of the Farmers’ Union president. This matter has received very little press publicity, and Mr Brooker appears to be the only

person who knows anything about It. Mr Mulholland may or may not have carried the proposal to the Government; the result does not appear to have been reported, but that conveys nothing. It is unlikely that it would have achieved anything in any case, as no funds are available at present for rural advances. I suggest that Mr Brooker should write to the head office of the Farmers’’Union to verify his facts before rushing into print to aim a kick at Mr Mulholland. It would seem that Mr Brooker does not wish to see farmers able to pay competitive rates of wages, as, by his interpretation, this will mean lower wages in all industries, a reduction in prices (presumably food prices) and a gradual degeneration in living standards to the coolie level. May 1 point out that the prices of our farm produce are governed by the London market, guaranteed prices and other manipulations notwithstanding. Farmers and all others engaged in servicing industries and professions have, therefore, nothing to lose by a reduction in costs. Only the uneconomic industries will suffer. When the primary producers prosper all other sections do likewise, and it is only under such conditions that we can attain a really sound standard of living.—l am, etc.. Countryman.