Quite a few of us have got votes, and few of us have as yet any strong political affiliations, and so our reporter has Bet out to study the policy of each party in turn. It is, of course, desirable that we should have some criteria on which to base our judgment. The question which obviously conies first today is the attitude of the various parties to the war, for it is apparent that however high our internal standard of living is, that would be cold comfort if the Japanese or Nazis occupied New Zealand. Other questions which will interest any New Zealander is the general standard of living, and of course the prosperity of the farmers is particularly Important, and also the position of workers' organisations. And, as students, we are interested in any advances in education put forward by the candidates.

National Party

Many of the points in this programme are desirable. Mr. Holland states his recognition of the necessity that everyone have "food, clothing, shelter, medical care and education." And finally, Mr. Holland states: "We will never allow another 1930-5 slump to happen in this country—that is definite and positive." This insistence of the progressive line of the National Party is disturbing—even if they pronounce themselves in favour of social security. Wasn't it this same Mr. Holland who called it "Social Insanity"? The National attitude to the slump does not unfortunately bear investigation. Mr. Holland states that every party in power was affected the world over by the last slump, and claims the sole rights to a new patent so that it won't happen again. This while he advocates laissez-faire in place of economic planning. The student of economics is not the only puzzled member of his audience. In general it seems that Mr. Holland wants to have his cake and eat it.

The most regrettable feature of this programme is that not one of its planks refer to the war. It is possible that Mr. Holland regards himself as parallel to Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill's "Freedom" is the old definition—the recognition of necessity. First of all, we must win the war.

Labour Party

It should be remembered that the Labour Party is not, strictly speaking, the Labour Government, the adherence of the late Mr. Coates, and of Messrs. Hamilton and Perry to the War Cabinet and the appointment of Mr. McLagan as Minister of Manpower made the Government more a Government of national unity rather than a Party Government.

First in importance is the pledge of the Labour Party to prosecute the war until victory is won over fascism. The questions of rehabilitation are dealt with, this including the practical details of schemes.

The question of the farmer and the countryside goes well into the question of governmental responsibility to assist farmers in the spheres of road-building, river-control, action to prevent soil-erosion and the expansion of hydro-electric schemes.

Social Security is to be extended under Labour guidance, and housing schemes (limited under war conditions) are planned on a satisfactory post-war scale.

Stabilisation and rationing, two important factors in war time economy, are to be maintained.

It is obvious, however, that the best way to judge the showing of a party is, if it is the government in power, to look at its record. The war effort for which the Labour Government is largely responsible, has received the support of the great majority of the people of New Zealand. Despite the enrolment in the armed forces of nearly 200,000 men, in the first three years of war production rose 35%. Manpower control, very similar to that under Churchill's Government in England, prevents the wastage of manpower in unessential work. New Zealand has not only carried out a big defence construction programme but also is equipping her own troops as well as exporting certain manufactured goods to other sections of the allied nations.

D.S.L.P.

The first cry of the Democratic Soldier Labour Party is that of over-commitment. New Zealand, they consider, is being bled white, because New Zealand (according to this Party) is doing too much in the war effort.

The complaint levelled is that consumer goods are in short supply and that industry is on its last legs through lack of manpower, as also is primary production. Mr. Lee alleges, that today prices are rising, and that monetary reform is necessary. Controlled currency and credit should make for "debt-free finance."

Education should be free from kindergarten to university for boys and girls of talent. This is of course also a Labour plank. The John A. Lee's Weekly stresses in one article the necessity for a second front and on the next page condemns the Labour Government for over-commitment. The scheme for returned men is paralleled to Labour's' rehabilitation programme and is designed to see that no returned man suffers economically for leaving his occupation to go into the armed forces.

The final question is "Socialism," and this in the D.S.L. Party includes monetary reform and control and "social upbuilding." The ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange is not touched on.

The Lunatic Fringe

This perhaps is the most distressing of all the questions raised at these elections. John Hogan in his paper "Democracy" devotes much of his space to easy talk on the evils of money-power and about debt-free credit. (It is noted that Lee also descends to this jargon.) The complete unreality of this talk of "the recognition of the principle that debt-free currency (i.e., credit) can be issued to the extent of unutilised productive capacity, is obvious.

The other notable fact about John Hogan is his anti-Soviet attitude. It is regrettable that at a time when national and international unity is a desirable objective in this struggle against fascism, that a political party finds it proper to print these subversive and inaccurate statements.

A quick glance at the candidates standing in any electorate shows the rich crop of independents, official independents and independent independents. These mostly represent the same interests as the opposition parties and their programmes diverge on minor Issues only.

We cannot, however, afford to judge [unclear: only] on words; we must ask questions. Why did the Nationalists leave the War Cabinet after voting in favour of the decision which they claim to be the cause of their departure? Why was not Mr. Lee in the House to vote on the controversial land-settlement bill? What was the attitude to Social Security of Messrs. Holland and Lee?

It cannot be said that Labour's war effort is by any means perfect. It is ridiculous to talk of a shortage of manpower and over-commitment when our shops are full of luxury goods. It is ridiculous to object to increased rationing (see position in Great Britain) when it leads to greater equality in distribution. This war will not win itself. It is up to us to see that we put into power a government strong enough to lead a united New Zealand to a first-rate war effort. This is our duty and our responsibility. Read all about it. Find out all about it, when you cast your vote.

•