THE LABOUR PARTY’S NERVES.

Taranaki Daily News, 16 March 1928, Page 7

THE LABOUR PARTY’S NERVES.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —It is characteristic of Socialists generally that whilst they constantly adopt the role of critic they hotly resent being criticised. The long letter of Mr. W. Richards, Hon. Secretary New Plymouth Branch N.Z. Labour Party, is an evidence of this. He complains of ‘‘numerous attacks in the press upon the Labour Party.” Of course, the Labour Party leaders do no attacking and all that Mr. Holland, and Mr. Itichards presents should bo accepted as “plain truth” and never called in question. Sorry we eannot oblige your eorrespottdi'lif in this way, because it is too ridiculous. It is Mr. Richards who is

brought to a “state of frenzy,’ and lets himself go in a long screed which mixes and muddles a whole lot of different questions with the dogmatic air right through of “I say so” as all sufficient, All this because his perfact party has actually been criticised.

Well, it is too bad. We observe that the Welfare League specially get on this writer’s nerves. It will not do what he thinks it should; its motives are bad; it is Tory (whatever that may mean in New Zealand), and it nmitinues its criticism when such right should be held a monopoly of the Socialist Labour Party. To get at a little solid fact we may point out that unemployment was acute in New Zealand even when Mr. R, J. Seddon was Premier. We remember the country being flooded with men out of work, and Mr. Seddon receiving largo deputations of unemployed. Severe unemployment has obtained in countries where conservative, liberal, labour, and other named Governments have been in office. To should, “Tories alone are responsible,’’ is childish rubbish. It is not correct to say that the party of Grey, Ballance, Seddon and Ward proclaimed land nationalisation as their policy. To assert that Mr. Ballance declared for “usehold” and “full control by the State” is to misrepresent actual facts. It is shameless mockery to say that the “usehold land tenure” of the present N.Z. Labour Party is the same as the Liberal land policy of Grey, Ballance, Seddon and Ward.

Again it is incorrect for Mr. Richards to say his party’s land policy “stands unshaken as it was originally propounded.” At the last conference of the party, held in Napier, April 18-20, 1927, the land platform was materially altered. The provision “that privately owned land shall not be sold or transferred except to the State” was deleted. The words “all land tenure based on occupancy and use” were struck out of the general land tenure, and only made applicable to “acquired land.” It is just as well to get the real truth on this question. Mr. Richards’ views on Seddon, Massey, McLeod, Holland, Downie Stewart and poor Mr. Haw-ken are all rather amusing, but we cannot Bpend time on them. Certainly wo criticised the British Labour Party surtax idea. If that is an offence then members of that party are equally guilty with ourselves. Mr. Richards says he is “not concerned with the League’s opinion,” and then writes a quarter column to try and controvert what he is not concerned with. Is he trying to be humorous, or what is the complaint he is suffering from? Then follow-s a long string of figures, which may, or may not, prove something. It appears wise to some to read a flood of figures which mean nothing to them and in this regard we can congratulate the scribe. Wo would not think of condradicting w*hat he writes, because we find it really entertaining. Whether the 2s to go on the death duties, or the death duties be placed on the unearned incomes doesn't really matter. He has proved his point, and we might suggest that he send his view of the situation on to Mr. Phillip Snowden, who wfill, no doubt, be delighted with its clarity.—We are, etc., N.Z. WELFARE LEAGUE. Wellington, March 13.