BRITAIN AND THE NEW ZEALAND FARMER

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24448, 6 November 1940, Page 11

BRITAIN AND THE NEW ZEALAND FARMER

B TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —It seems a pity to be thrashing this subject further, but 1 see Mr. Begg is still not convinced that any British Government was “prepared to let its own people starve.” Well, let us leave their intentions aside and look at-what they actually did, and perhaps we can reach agreement with Mr Begg that way. I think the Liberal and Labour Governments have better records, but I shall deal with the acts of the Conservative Government, as it was that Government which was the subject of the original controversy about the meat restrictions.' 1hr.1931, immediately on the fall of the*Labour-Gov-ernment, the Conservatives savagely /reduced the unemployment benefits, on the strength cf the notorious May Committee’s report. Cuts were then no doubt the order of the day, but surely they started at the wrong end of the scale by further depressing the already under-nourished unemployed, when it is considered that Britain is a land of such enormous accumulations cf wealth. It has been calculated that in Britain 1 per cent, of the people hold about 60 per cent, of the wealth, and single individuals hold enormous fortunes, such as the Duke, of Buccleugh (recently dismissed from the King’s household Nazi sympathies), who was/feported in the press to own 460,000 acres in 14 counties and to have an income of £200,000 a year from his rents. Not only were the unemployment rates cut, but whole categories of unemployed , were excluded altogether from, benefits, and a drastic “means test” , was. imposed to reduce the cash benefits' still further This put all the unemployed into Sir. John Boyd Orr’s lowest diet group, and as one commentator said, “starved them, if not to death, at any rate into ill-health, and, the authorities hoped, into passive acquiescence in their- fate as their powers of resistance weakened.” ’’ It is w-ell to remember that the unemployed were not a small section of worthless individuals who did not want to work, but a huge section of the ordinary steady-going woi’.ers, numbering from 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 men, with their wives and families, whose one ambition was to be allowed to work for their living. V .’Had they been angels from heaven they could not have found work tas the system then stood, 'guch was" the outcry . about these-cuts';-vthat as;; the slump . passed off. the rates /were 'slightly liberalised, but iargely;;by'' increasing the levies' on the other -employed workers, and not by higher'itlxaticajk,. oh the;, rich.;... In,: other words, -the,. slightly 'undernourished were, forced Vto i’help the grossly under-nourished- Another example of this tendency was Mr Chamberlain’s “ De-rating Act,” which, under the pretence of stimulating business enterprise, exempted industrial properties ofithree-quarters of the local rates ,them, and threw a.+hiavy extra-/; burden on to householders, with crushing, results, especially in the depressed areas,

where local , rates were heaviest, ' in some cases, such as Merthyr’: in Wales, hejKg as high as 27 s 6d in‘the £,of annual value (compare Dunedin rates.-, at about 5s in £). On the otheit haifd, -4i such as Imperial Cheraie&!'‘lndustries (in which Mr Chamberlain himself was a large shareholder) admitted that it saved £200,000 a year as a result of the De-rating Act. Indeed, from ’931, the whole tendency of the Conservative Government’s taxation was to reverse previous trends and to throw a heavier proportion on to the poor than on to the rich. There is much vague talk of heavy taxation in England almost exterminating the rich, but the actual figures show that, over the last 10 years, the rich classes have been able to meet all taxation ahd death duties, and still accumulate greater fortunes. For example, in 1936, when Orr was compiling hi s figures on malnutrition, the Inland Revenue returns showed 49 more millionaires in Britain than in the previous year. Side by side with this grossly unequal distribution of wealth' (and, indeed, proceeding frdm it) the researches of the Health De- . partrcent and of doctors like Orr and McGonigle show a correspondingly, gross unequal distribution of good health. The health, stature, fitness and longevity of the poor, because of their inadequate incomes, are in every case shown to be much inferior to that of the richer classes. Possibly because he. does not realise these facts, Mr Begg in a previous letter said “ ameliorations were constantly being adopted, and the British people as a whole were better fed, etc.” He forgets that the subject of this controversy was the nutrition of the poorest few millions. About the only “ amelioration ” for the depressed areas was to have their name changed to " special areas.” because no doubt that did not sound so bad. To come now to the meat quotas, these were first imposed at Ottawa with the agreement of the New. Zealand Government, but in fagt it seems that our quota was reasonably high and did not actually limit our exports until 1939. In that year the British Board of Trade imposed a 3 per cent, cut on our quota, and New Zealand was left with 1,000,000 carcasses in store and unsaleable. Mr Begg says they could all have been shipped in the early months of 1940, but he omits to mention that this would have left us with'a still-greater unsaleable surplus at the end of 1940. As I understand the position, this 3 per cent, cut was imposed in 1939 despite the public warnings.:of men, such as Orr. that it would still further reduce the avail-able-meat for the very poor, because ’ it was the only acceptable way in which the Conservative Government could help the British farmers (and, incidentally,' keep them solvent to pay rent to great landlords such as the Duke of Buccleugh). The alternative of raising the incomes of the poorest classes to enable them to pay remunerative prices to both British and New Zealand farmers for *an adequate supply-r of ■ meat would have been actually- possible, but would have meant 'encroachments pn the privileges . of the wealthy conservative t classes, and was therefore unacceptable. Of course, the correct remedy is not mere redistribution of wealth, but the provision for all of. the greater abundance that is physically possible. But until that could be done, no excuse for the vicious cutting down ol the unemployed and lowest classes by the Conservative Government. It is true that the treatment of the unemployed in Britain was better than on the Continent, but if a rich man pampers some of his children and ill-feeds others, it is no ’excuse to point out that other men across the road starve their children still worse. From the above and from the data in previous letters. I leave readers to judge whether Mr Thompson’s original statement was .ill-founded. Mr Begg’s illustration of the customer wanting a shoe that was No. 7, inside and No. 4 outside is very apt. That is exactly what orthodox finance has been trying to do with human beings for years. i.e.. to force a No. 7 size in production to squeeze into a,.No. 4 size in finance and distributive mechanism.'- If the -problem\we& vj&ei. OfSteaffe scarcityi.-lwe should all be morally bound to tighten our belts, but when the problem of most of'the civilised world, both during the slump and now. is one of actual plenty, if hot of glut, in many foodstuffs. nothing but ferocious inhumanity. or a criminal ignorance and lack of imagination on the part of the orthodox financial and governing classes, . can explain the folly and cruelty of such a course. Since the foregoing was written. I have noticed a reference in the Daily Times to the formation of a society in England to provide playgrounds for the 5,000.000 children in England and Wales who have no playground of any soffi hot even the roadways. This is in*ra> country where one landowner holds 460,000 acres, and is a stirring commentary on the lack of interest of previous Governments in the welfare of the mass of their people.—l am, etc., , ■ , Warrington Taylor. Dunedin, November 3, ;> [The length of the shove letter would have warranted its rejection. We simply cannot provide the space for long letters. —Ed., O.D.T.]

TO THE EDITOR Sir, —Mr James Begg has ignored two of my questions, but has admitted in his reply to Mr R. S. Thompson that there were 1,000,000 carcasses of ewe mutton in store and unsaleable when the war commenced, but qualified this by saying that it could have been shipped to arrive in England in January. That statement is not correct in its entirety in so far as the carcasses could have been shipped only if the new season’s Hawke's Bay lambs were late in coming to the freezing works, in which case-there would then have been 1,000,000 carcasses of lamb over at the end of the season besides an. extra 1,000,000 ewes to be killed this season. These ewes, of course, would not have been killed, as the freezing works would not take such a risk a second time.

Any schoolboy can calculate wha,t effect that state of affairs would have on this country as a whole. We have approximately 30,000,000 ewes in New Zealand, and to keep that flock up we save approximately 5,000.000 ewe lambs each year. Allowing for 5 per cent, of deaths, you will see that we have a very large surplus of old ewes for sale each year. Now, Sir, if those ewes were unsaleable, the effect would be truly disastrous, not for the farmers alone, but for the whole country. It would mean that 50 per cent, of the sheep farmers and 75 per cent, of the runholders would be forced to abandon their properties. Mr Begg knows this to be true better than most people, his knowledge and experience being far above the average, so why is he trying to hoodwink the farmers and the public? We elected him to the Meat Board to further our interests and not to bluff us , into a fools’ paradise. I would point out that it is not the New Zealand farmer who is selling this'mutton on the Home market, but the New Zealand people as a whole, including, of , course, the farmers. The farmer is paid in New Zealand currency for this meat, while the people are paid in goods imported. While the farmer would get the first knock if the mutton .was, unsaleable, the people as a whole would in the end suffer just as much, and Mr Beggs “ madam ”= would not have any money to buy the Shoes he mentions, no matter what the size "inside or out” was. or the price eithet.-l The people should be .told the whole facts, so that they can -help to avoid' a recurrence of this truly terrible. position. —I am, etc., Sheep Farmer.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—There is an admission in Mr James Begg’s letter of October 31. published in- your issue of the 2nd mst. Mr Begg "says: “Mr Thompson apparently wants such prices for our exports as will enable our farmers to pay for our high production costs, and at the same time he wants the poor in Grea. Britain to have an abundance of cheap meat. These are very laudable desires, but not easy to reconcile.” The reference is to two legitimate claims, only one of which can be met and that at the expense of the other. If the New Zealand farmers cannot pay their production costs, then they, must go out of business, and if they do get enough to pay their costs the poor in Great Britain must have less meat. That the poor in Great Britain should have an abundance of cheap meat and the farmer. in New Zealand should be able to nay his production costs is a laud-able-desire. but not easy to reconcile. "Why are these two. fair demands not (easy to reconcile?-.- Not: because the meat-'-iS insufficient for all, but because of an arbitrarily restricted supply of money which fails evenly to distribute it. —I am. etc., “ Humanity.” Dunedin, N.E.I.