State Monopolies

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19455, 14 October 1937, Page 9

State Monopolies

Sir—True to name, “Tory” rushes in to back up “Anti-Monopoly.” "Tory” “cannot swallow the Government monopoly” of broadcasting stations. Will “Tory” be fair and use an impartial mind? If so, he must admit that the last Tory Government was definitely out to make broadcasting purely a State-owned affair and B stations were to be allowed to fade out unassisted. If his mind cannot receive this fact, the pages of Hansard would disclose it. As for the suggestion that I use "Tory" in a hostile spirit, why the veiled inference that the Labour Government are Communists? Evidently “Tory" does not realise or understand the antagonism of the Labour movement, and the Government in particular, towards the Communists. Does he understand the ical objects of communism and does he realise that it is vastly different from socialism? The statement that “It is the few in every country that make it what it is” is a statement of doubtful qualification, and is too big for a reply except to ask what does this mean in the vast majority of cases other than monopoly in the extreme, monopoly gained by the exploitation of man? Of course there are a tew very rare exceptions in which men are" exceedingly generous with their profits, such as Lord Nuffield, and while not in any way wishing to detract from their good work it is only fair to state that after heir philanthropy they still have millions left. The ordinary person who gives sav 5s to a deserving cause often makes a big sacrifice to do so, and in proportion gives infinitely moie. “Tory” says “Why cannot the Government leave the small transport man alone and be content with its railway system?” Well, “its” railway system is “our" railway system, and events will prove the right or wrong ol the Government's policy, but 1 might mention the last Government was “sudden death" on many ol the small transport men, and if “Tory cannot remember that fact he has a pommemory. The openings for the small business man and the young man with initiative are “rapidly" being narrowed down owing to the increasing monopolies—not Government either in practically every country in the world, and the movement had gained considerable momentum in New Zealand long before the advent of the Labour Government. As regards the using of a nom-de-plume and the quibble over Mr. Nash’s statement, what about Mr Poison’s veiled accusation, so worded that the chairman of committees could not take exception to it. As for the nom-de-plume, I suggest that I°>\ again read my letter intelligently. 1 maintain it should, as a matter of fairness, be compulsory for everyone writing in criticism of any administration to publish his name and address so one could sec h they had an axe to grind and thereby place a value on it accordingly. I offered 1o publish mv name if "Anti-Monopoly did likewise. He said he was not interested in mv name, but 1 was in his, he being the critic.—Yours etc., B. FAI lv.