POLITICAL POLICIES

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLV, Issue 21155, 30 September 1938, Page 7

POLITICAL POLICIES

To the Editor ol " The Timaru Herald ” Sir, —The old National Coalition is dead; dead as a coffin nail. Dickens I reckoned that particular brand of nail the deadest thing in the iron trade. The Hon. Adam Hamilton (the most unsympathetic Minister of the dear departed) has announced the “defunctness”; the Member for Christchurch North dlclaims the remotest pre or pro association; the Waitakl Nationalist belongs to a new party. Forget-me-nots, dear sweet things, are at a discount. This scribe holds no brief for a tax gathering Government, Reform, United, National, Coalition, Labour, or any other, but for a Government which taxed the meagre pittance of 4 A men his memory is of the “lest we forget” variety. Tire sheaf of papers from which the Member for Invercargill regaled the House contains the hard experience of thousands of ten bob a week workers, and it will take more than honeyed lines of prose or rhyme to blazon out the memory of that time. An old book declares that faith is the foundation of things hoped for. The most unsympathetic Minister of the "defunct” says he gives to the country an assurance of hope ... a promise of freedom in work and leisure . . . and the highest standard of family life. Will you permit me to repeat . . . the old National Coalition is dead, dead as Pharoah! Let us glance at the resurrection—or rather transmigration. The election is to be fought on the broad questions of principle—Democracy versus Socialism. What of our Democracy? What of our Socialism? Speaking on the Budget Captain Rushworth said: “But sterling balances are controlled by the Bank of England. We find not only her in New Zealand, but throughout the Empire, that one monetary policy has been Insisted on and carried out, and that policy is Imposed by the Bank of England. The Reserve Bank here under the present law, I suggest, is really a branch of the Bank of England. It has been said here that the Government can Impose its will on the Reserve Bank. It was said in England, not so long ago, that the difference between the Bank of England and the British Treasury was the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It may be the same here. The difference between the Governmnt here and the Reserve Bank may be the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee; but that is an ambiguous statement . . . and the domination can be from either side.” He was a shrewd old Jew banker who declared "Permit me to issue and control the currency of a country and I care not who makes its laws.” What have we? Domination—by whom? Away in Alberta hard upon a million people are struggling to Implement a policy of personal freedom in work and leisure, and security to maintain the highest standard of family life. Why have they been unable to make their objective? Domination—by whom? A king visited the “depressed areas.” We can build Queen Mary’s—and slums. “Something must be done,” he said. “Something” was done, and a democrat of the democrats, what of him? Domination! By whom? The security scheme now on the Statute Book “will not be operated." Instead a scheme would be provided essentially on the lines of the 30 year-old British model, which has recently been added to the Australian taxpayers’ burden. The Rotary Economic Research Committee suggested the payment of the army, navy and pensions British appropriations with debtless money. Notwithstanding strong pressure by well known men in this Dominion, that social security should be taxless, taxation Is to be the medium to secure the wherewithal! by Labour and National alike. The method is pre-eminently orthodox. Labour’s scheme Is a mild challenge to —the National ... an acceptance of servile subordination to oligarchial dictation. Domination! By whom? But perhaps the item which "takes the bun” is the solicitude for the “newly weds.” As I read it my reaction was a wish that I could shake off 40 years of life, aye, even were it in the certainty that I might challenge my dear friend "Touchstone" to join me in a shy at Hitler. But as I reflected that hard upon £3,000,000 annually would be required a dozen years hence and any sum from £20,000,000 to £30,000,000 will have ceased to be a personal liability. What about the National? Debt or debtless—that is the question.—l -:m, T. POWELL. Albury, September 2g.