THE LOCAL ELECTIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25552, 3 June 1944, Page 8

THE LOCAL ELECTIONS

Sir,—The Leader of the Opposition, Mr S. G. Holland, has let the cat out of the bag. He claims the defeat of Labour in the local body elections as indicating ” that after the next general elections the National Party will be called upon to form a government." That proves what is ail along contended by Labour that the Citizens are the Nationalist Party under an alias. Otherwise how could a Citizens’ Party victory imply a Nationalist Party victory? The fact is that the aggregate vote recorded for Labour candidates for the City Council exceeded the aggregate votes received by the Citizen candidates. But that is not all; Mr Middlemiss received 3600 votes for Independent Labour which, if divided among the 12 Labour candidates, would have averaged 300 for each and would have given Labour a majority if added to the votes of the defeated candidates. The fact that there are Labour mayors in Green Island and West Harbour does nqt indicate a vote for the National Party in Dunedin electorates. The Wakari branch of the Labour Party proved its belief that if the people were leminded on polling day of the fact that an election was being held and were got to go and vote that the majority were progressive and would vote labour. They, like the Kaikorai Valley branch, succeeded in killing apathy when the electors were reminded of their duty on polling day. This proves the pipe dream of Mr Holland is illusory, as at a general election electors are roused from their apathy by enthusiastic workers for the Labour cause who distribute literature as well.—l am, e^c -' J. E. MacManus.

Sir.—During the whole of the municipal election campaign we were assured by the press and the candidates from the platform that the name Citizens’ Association had no political significance. We now have proof of a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the people, by the article under the above heading which appeared in your issue of the 30th inst. in which Mr S. G. Holland, the leader of the National Party, attempted to “ read the writing on the wall,” as he put it. I think the electors were entitled to know the real truth before election day. We also had a Labour ticket, and all the candidates stated openly that they were a party and would work as a team, but unfortunately some of us were gulled into thinking the Citizens’ Association candidates really did represent all the people. Now Mr S. G. Holland has given the show away.—l am, etc.. Hoodwinked Once

Sir,—The answer to the query put by “ Citizen ” is, I think, Nazi, for, whatever the party, the instructions are the same:

“Block vote! Vote the whole ticket.” The leaders of the parties encourage neither independent nor constructive thinking—l am. etc.. Keep An Open Mind

Sir, —Now that the Mayor and Councillors have been chosen by the people, would it not be more dignified and fair to each one if degrading “ mud-throw-ing ” were discontinued. Surely people should have something more useful to occupy their time and thoughts than to employ it in dirty mud-throwing. No doubt many people are jealous of Dr McMillan; he is a very talented young man and very sincere; and he was the first person to congratulate Mr D. C.. Cameron. Would the mud-throwers have been as generous had they been in his place.—l am, etc.,

Fair Play to All,

Sir,—“ Oh, Truth, what errors are committed in thy name.” This is a fitting reply to the implications of “ Truth ” that Labour stands for orthodox finance and to the sweeping statement that the promises of Labour, both parliamentary and municipal, were honoured in the breach rather than in the observance. I crave space to show that Labour has made inroads on the old financial order which justify further steps to assist the expansion and further development of our industries. The orthodox methods of the Nationalists were to use the Reserve Bank as a bankers' bank which only lent the credit created bv it to banks and financial institutions. These, in turn, after they got a rake-off, lent to business men, if properly guaranteed, at higher rates of interest, as they also did to the Government and local public bodies. But under Labour rule the Reserve Bank created £23,000,000 worth of credit to construct State rental houses without any financier getting a rake-off them. In addition, our local " Dunedin City Council was lent £300,000 to enable occupiers of municipal houses built for them to become owners of them. Nor is this all, as the workers, soldiers, and farmers can obtain advances to build homes at the cheapest rate of interest ever paid for this class of advance. To show the benefit the citizens received I quote two cases typical of all loans renewed during the Labour council s term of office. In 1932 the Tramways Department paid £26,108 in interest for that year. In 1936, under Labour, it paid £17,618, or a saving to users of trams of £9,500 annually. In 1932 the Electric Power Department paid £76,662. In 1936 Labour reduced the interest to £52,446, or a saving in interest of £24,256 per annum, a substantial reduction in interest to users of electricity.—l am. etc.,^^_^

[The Labour Council was elected in 1935, and had not been twelve months in office when the municipal year closed on March 31 1936. It is hard to see how it can claim credit for a reduction in interest payments in that year.—Ed., O.D.T.]

Sir.—l think M. Silverstone’s letter is proof that Labour's local election campaign was launched and carried through in an atmosphere thick with false claims and false issues, the evident leading hope of success being that the country was inhabited by political illiterates, who could safely be counted on to swallow wholeheartedly the most reckless and transparent misstatements and the most glutinous humbug imaginable. Mr Silverstone savs it is never wise to count your chickens before they are hatched. His postiion on the list of defeated candidates would tell him that, just as it would remind him that it is not the hen that cackles the most that lays the bonniest egg. Although Mr Silverstone enjoys wallowing in the morbid memories of the depression years, it must come as a severe jolt to his arrogant self-assurance to be reminded that Australia, with five States under Labour was in a much worse plight than New Zealand during those years. Banks suspended payment or could only pay out a portion of the demands, empty shops, people fed on the street's, pensioners paid in part with food coupons—this was only a portion of the sufferings of the people under Labour. Britain, with 1,000,000 unemployed, turned to Labour. The number of unemployed rose to 2,500,000. After the depression New Zealand turned t'o Labour. Mr Lefeaux, former governor of the Reserve Bank, has this to say; " There is not the slightest doubt that New Zealand was heading for the rocks, despite favourable weather, and it was only the war which saved the Dominion from serious embarrassment.” Will Mr Silverstone challenge that statement?—lam, etc., Matilda.

Sir,—ln your issue of May 31 Mr P'. Wilson, president of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce, is quoted as saying; “ The decisive endorsement of the citizens’ candidates . . . shows the objection of a very large body of electors to the introduction of party politics into local body government." Mr Wilson ignores the fact, keenly felt by many people, that the electors had only the alternative of two parties. One party openly advertised itself as such, whereas the other functioned under the name of an association. It certainly seems as if Mr S. G. Holland confused this association with his own party, for as stated in your issue of May 30 he said: "Saturday’s voting strengthened my previously-expressed view that after the next general election the National Party will be called upon to form a Government.” If this confusion did not exist in his mind then he makes a most unwarrantable assumption in suggesting that the rejection of one party necessarily means the acceptance of another. Very many people are now seeing that party government, with its vitiated loyalties and artificial debates, is the antithesis of democracy. Party government has proved its utter futility to accomplish general reforms, for of necessity the interests of the citizens as a whole are secondary to its own. Mr Wilson deplores the introduction of party politics into local body government, but for me this is too nice a distinction which recognises party politics as an evil in local body but not in Dominion Government. The difference between the two bodies is only one of degree, and when the party system is abolished from both it will be possible to make real progress for the benefit of fill.—-I am, etc., Opoho, June 1. Humanity.