BRITAIN AND THE NEW ZEALAND FARMER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24432, 18 October 1940, Page 3

BRITAIN AND THE NEW ZEALAND FARMER

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —In your issue of the 16th inst. you report the following statement by Mr R. S. Thcmpson:—“ But not only was the Imperial Government prepared to let its own people starve: it was prepared to ruin the farming industry in New Zealand.” That such a statement could be made by a man in a responsible position is incredible and it will be resented by every right thinking farmer in New Zealand. Britain has always treated New Zealand with generosity and the utmost consideration, and for many years has been purchasing our exportable meat at prices above world parity. When war broke out Britain offered to buy 300,000 tons of meat in the first year, and actually took 50,000 tons in addition to this quantity at prices that are everywhere acknowledged to be very satisfactory. The British Government could have bought our meat at any price it chose to give. There is no alternative market and we would have had to accept any price offered. Mr Thompson’s tears for the starving millions who, he imagines, are in Britain are suggestive of crocodile tears. This is shown by his subsequent remark about trade within the Empire. He evidently wants to deprive the starving millions of cheap Argentine meat. Statements which'are untrue and ungenerous by its president simply discredit the Farmers’ Union in the eyes of the public and should be unconditionally withdrawn and apologised for.—l am. etc.. James Begg.

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —Your correspondent, “ Common Sense ” criticises as absurd the statement by Mr Thompson at the Farmers’ Union meeting that' 20,000,000 people in Britain have less than 10s a week to spend on food. It is absurd and tragic, but unfortunately it is true. The whole question of undernourishment in Britain. and, of the quotas on Dominion meat, was dealt with by Sir John Boyd Orr in an address published in the Health and Agriculture Supplement to the New English Weekly cn March 9, 1939. Sir John Boyd Orr is a world authority on these subjects and I cannot do better than offer “Common Sense” and.your other readers some extracts from his address. He said the majority-cf well-to-do people do not realise what a large proportion of the population falls below the poverty* line or what a low standard the poverty line represents. Millions of the people of Britain have a standard so low that they cannot get sufficient of the necessities of life to enable them to attain full health and the joy of living that accompanies health. Then Sir John Boyd Orr analyses the result of Mr - Seebohm Rowntree’s recent exhaustive inquiry on the cost of living and the needs cf life, and shows that Mr Rowntree estimates that with existing costs in Britain it would need 20s 6d a week for a family with three children to provide a minimum diet consisting of a cheap but fairly good meal in the middle of the day and the two other meals cf the cheapest food that would satisfy hunger. Sir John says-that this is not a diet on which you can rear a healthy race, hut he estimates that “there are millions of our fellow-countrymen who are so poor that they cannot afford as good a diet as that.’’ Please note that this diet means an expenditure of only 4s Id a week per person on food, which is a long way short of the figure of 10s a week criticised by “Common Sense.” Sir John then dealt with the difficulties of the British farmers and the various steps taken by the British 1 Government to keep up the prices of their products. The latest was the then suggested restriction on meat imports from the dominions (which came into force about May. 1939). These schemes, he said, maintain the prices of English farm products by producing scarcity, and hence help the British farmers at the expense of the British consumers. For -the wealthier half of , the community these indirect taxes on food aie not important, and. with the poorer half it results in their being able to get less meat and milk and other foods when they already have a grossly inadequate diet. He sums up as follows; “ Here is the crux of the whole p lem. We need money to bridge the gulf between what the farmer needs and what the poor can pay. The money must be found where the money is. or, if that process is going to be too painful for those who have the money, our financial experts must devise ways and means of adjusting the volume of money to our potential wealth.”

Sir John Boyd Orr has also published a book on “Food, Health and Income” in which he gives statistics showing that of the population' of 45,000,000 in Great Britain, approximately 31,500,000 are not able to spend more than 10s a week on food, while the lowest 5,000,000 can afford only 4s a week per person for food. These figures amply confirm Mr Thompson’s statement at the Farmers’ Union. I can quite imagine “ Common Sense ” being almost unable to believe them, but unfortunately they are true.

Another correspondent, “J’Accuse,” recently ‘ objected to a radio talk on the extremes of wealth and poverty in London. Mr Churchill rightly tells us that we are now “fighting to survive.” but he and the other British leaders have promised that when victory is gained they will help to institute a better, nobler and juster order in England and throughout the world. Individuals like,“Common Sense” arid “ J’Accuse.” who refuse to see the existing faults and injustices, are the ones who obstruct the attainment of that ultimate victory. Others such as “Fair Play” say that if all existing wealth was redistributed the poor would be very little better off. It is not a question of redistributing wealth, but of reforming the system to enable the full potential supply of food and clothing and the other ncessities of life to be produced and distributed. As Sir John Boyd Orr says. “We peed the food. We have the land to produce it.',' SW.e\ have -millions of unemployed wanting work. If we say we cannot produce -the food the nation needs because we, cannot find the money, what we ars reallv saying is that we cannot produce it under the existing financial and system.” That is where the need is for sound and genuine reform.—l am., etc..

Warrington Taylor. Dunedin. October 17.