The Wanganui Chronicle. SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 1949 DOWN TO PANTRY LEVEL

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 April 1949, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 1949 DOWN TO PANTRY LEVEL

“VTTHY cannot politicians reduce polities down to the pantry level and then they would have the co-operation of the women?” was the scintillation of Nellie Scanlon when addressing the Wanganui Women’s Institutes. Miss Scanlon illustrated her vague point by saying that just before she left England it was announced that more meat was being given out for Christmas. Someone worked out the figures and showed that this meant an extra twopence worth of catsmeat and one-third of a sausage on the ration.” The ration has one virtue at least, and that is it is concrete. Half a sausage is still half a sausage when you get it. There is nothing much more that can be said about it. It remains where it is until it is consumed and then it is no more. The politician who started going round the country explaining to the housewives of England that the extra amount of meat was the equivalent of twopence worth and that the half sausage was thrown in to take the scales down would immediately be told that he was wasting his time because the extra, small as it was. needed no explanation when it was available. The politician would be called upon to explain or to seek an explanation when the ration was not there. How then can the representative of the people bring down politics to the pantry level? What does it mean if it does not mean that the half sausage is still half a sausage and that half, like half a loaf of bread, is better than none at all? But who wants to be reminded of that?

There is a notion that the man’s point of view differs from the woman’s point, of view when it comes to food. Their point of view is identical. It is sometimes said that the man thinks for himself whereas the woman thinks for the family. That is as simple as it is silly, for no simple explanation such as that fits the facts. There are men who, thinking of themselves first, last and all the time, get married in order to secure the better things of life and as cheaply as possible. That is precisely what marriage is for; it is the most economic way of having a good time—that is an enjoyable time. Some women marry in order to’ have.a secure meal" ticket and to look out for themselves in every other way. Marriage for them is a release and the gate to opportunity which they exploit with unconscionable selfishness. There are men and women who marry as a result of the promptings of the highest of motives. They desire to have a corner of heaven on earth and they bend.all their energies to attaining that desirable objective. Their functions will be different, the one will be acquisitive, the other conservative of what is acquired, but their point of view is but two sides of one object or entity, the home. An intelligent woman is already interested in polities and doesn't want to be treated as though she had but half a sausage skin full of intelligence. The one way to divorce women from polities is to treat them as though they had not the understanding to grasp a national problem. It was on this point that the suffragettes used to grow so indignant. Nellie Scanlon has forgotten her women. Arthur Bryant has remarked that “abusing politicians in a free country is such easy game that it hardly seems fair.” The hardest thing tint can be said about a politician is to say nothing at all. To condemn him for his ignoble or stupid acts —if one feels they arc ignoble or stupid—is the right of every man and the politician is prepared to take it, but to demand that he gets down to the pantry level, which is another way of saying that he should explain the obvious and leave alone the results of the obvious is exasperating. It would mean the end of discussing the national business; it would be putting the cart before the horse; it would mean putting the pantry before the budget. Politicians are required to discuss the Budget, there are plenty of people to discuss whether they fry chops or grill them. What is required of the politician is that he shall discuss and explain the nation’s business. He is a collective agent, his business is not to attend to the individual business of the citizen but the citizen’s collective business. There are, for example, twentyseven thousand people living in the City of Wanganui, and Mr. J. B. Cotterill is the representative in Parliament for most of them. To what extent can each and every one of thqln occupy the time of this Parliamentarian? He can be abused for his action or his inaction in respect to public business, but were he to give to each individual but one minute of his time on a forty-hour week, doing nothing else it would take up eleven weeks in each year. That would be pantry politics with a vengeance! To give each individual five minutes would absorb all his working time for the whole year. Obviously enough there must be some consolidation of the public work which Mr. Cotterill can undertake. . V hen he takes the collective figure he assumes that eyveryone will be able to apply the generalisation to their own circumstances. Spoon feeding information on public affairs is an impossibility and besides the public won’t take it. There is nothing more nauseating than to be regarded as having no more intelligence than is required to conceive of two and two and yet require somebody to tell with appropriate illustrations that, adued together, they make four: but .that, would be an example par excellence of paiitry politics. In the main the problem of feeding is an individual problem. In wartime it became necessary for the Government of England to ration food so that all should have their share. It is irksome to have to be rationed for food or for anything else and it is an expensive procedure. The last thing any politician wants to see is the rationing policy continued. The problem in respect to the meat ration today is the problem of handling that very difficult person Senor Peron of Argentina, who seemingly wants the people of the United Kingdom to foot the bill for some of his grosser mistakes. To agree to Argentinan terms in respect to the purchase of meat would be very pleasing to Peron, but it would not mean an increase in the meat supply to the consumers of the Kingdom. Notwithstanding firm contracts entered into with the Argentinan Government, Peron secs to it that the quantities contracted for -ire not delivered. The chief headache of the United Kingdom Government does not arise out of the amount that goes on to each individual family table, but out of the shortage of the mass orders placed with Argentina The average pantry manager knows that if more meat comes into the United Kingdom more will Veach each dinner table. There is enough consumer intelligence to appreciate that when supplies sin-ink or do not. come up to eontraeted-for totals the individual cannot have mere. The politician should still concentrate his attention to the supply cud until he can safely retire from the business and leave it to the traders. Meanwhile the individual politician should not be abused for not attempting the impossible. Such tactics, while easy, arc unfair.