Conrad Bollinger opened the case for the affirmative, by making a grand review of Mr. Holland's seven-point election broadcast of 1949. "He promised us that the £ would go further, but in fact by decontrolling prices and lifting subsidies prices had sky-rocketed. He promised us a sane education policy, but in fact he had cut the number of bursaries and reduced grants to education boards. He promised us that he would extend Social Security, even though he had attacked it at its outset as "applied, lunancy." In office he had, in practice, only made sporadic hand-outs which even his own party opposed. He had promised us an independent foreign policy, but in the banqueting chamber in Washington it was America "Right and Wrong." Mr. Holland had promised us he would abolish compulsory unionism and this was a plank in his policy with which the Left-wing wholeheartedly agreed but when in office he shamelessly farted to fulfil his pledge because if he did his own stooges in the trade union movement would suffer."

Mr. Curtin has Confidence

Frank Curtin replied for the negative. Like Conrad, he took Mr. Holland's promises and systematically reviewed them. He attacked Conrad's assertion about education policy as factually incorrect. In fact, instead of the grant decreasing it had been increased. I rank claimed that the people of New Zealand were realistically minded and thoroughly supported the present foreign policy. The strongest point in his argument was that the pie-sent Government had carried out its pre-election pledges with respect to industrial matters, and that its treatment of the watersiders was fully supported by the great majority of the people of New Zealand. Frank admitted that there had been an inflationary trend in New Zealand but he maintained that it had been evident in the years before the Nationalists had come to power and was a world-wide movement, beyond the power of any administration to alter.

Mr. Foy (of Course) Has Not

Doug Foy was the second speaker for the affirmative. He argued that the present Government had been elected on two slogans: "Make the £ go further" and "time for a change." in fact the £ could have been said to have gone very much further—away, and even if the people of this country had seen fit to turn out of office the Labour Party after 14 years they were now in a mood to turn out the Nationalists after 19 months. Doug disagreed with Frank about the pledge to maintain Social Security benefits. Although they had not been openly attacked, inflation had greatly diminished their effect. The farmers had got nothing from this party except a 50 per cent, surcharge on their freight and a rise in the price of the Journal of Agriculture by 400 per cent. It was perfectly true that Mr. Holland could do nothing about inflation, and it was equally true that any other capitalist Government anywhere in the world was equally powerless. This was, however, an argument for Socialism.

Mr. Hogg for Hollandism

Jim Hogg was the second speaker for the negative. He pointed out that the confidence of the people must be increased by the way in which they have dealt with the recent industrial disturbance. The vast majority of the people of this country approve the Government's firm hand with industrial trouble makers. In foreign affairs we had to realise that we could not stand alone in the Pacific and that America was our best guarantee. The Government's intention to go ahead with the military service scheme and extend it had the support of the people. "No Government which fearlessly, honestly and genuinely pursues its avowed policy can lose the confidence of the people."

The House and the Anarchist

After the first barrage was over there arose from the floor of the House an eloquent and fiery regiment of speakers anxious to air their views, ventilate their prejudices and generally ride their hobby horses for the edification of all. It is impossible to record the whole lot accurately and a certain amount of injustice is bound to be done to all of them.

Mr. Clayton supported the negative case. He stressed strongly that the question was whether the Government had the confidence of the people of New Zealand, not necessarily this house. The average person does not worry about the ethics or morality of the Emergency Regs., they simply view it all from the point of view of how it affects them personally. Rightly or wrongly they think Holland's handling of the strike was good and they will vote for him.

Dave Walsh was not quite up to his best form but firmly announced his conviction that all government was bad. "I follow Mr. Sorel in believing that the worst thing about any government is that it governs!"

I thought I noticed an ominous glint in Dave's eye when he remarked "If Mr. Holland thinks that violence is come to an end in New Zealand he is very [unclear: much]

Bill McLeod pointed out that it was strange that if the people supported the Government there were such tremendous rallies at public meetings hold by the deregistered watersiders. The foreign policy of the present Government ran counter to the people's desire for an enduring peace.

Jerry Warner pointed out that it was not a question of the Government losing the confidence of the people: in his view it had never had it. From conversations about the town it was clear that there was a growing antagonism toward the present office-holders.

Mr. Sullivan declared that there was a logical flaw in Mr. Curtin's argument for, if the Nationalists had the confidence of the people, why were they going to the polls long before an election was normally due? The watersiders had challenged them to go to the people on the industrial issues because they claimed the Government had forfeited the confidence of the nation. In effect they had admitted the truth of this charge.

Mr. Cunllnane supported the negative view. "No one leader, from Stalin to Lady Godiva could stop the rise in the cost of living."

Mr. Bryce Harland supported the affirmative case; he pointed out that Holland's might is right theory had dangerous precedents in other countries at other times. The emergency regulations were a grave attack on personal liberties.

Mr. Erie Robinson approached the question with his own philosophical method. Philosophical is hardly the right word, perhaps "world view" is fairer. Erie saw the ideal society as a community of friends with the right of all to speak their mind at any time. The greatest good of the greatest number could not be denied as the best basic assumption of such a 6tate. How did the realities of Aotearoa stack up against this ideal. The police state regulations and suppression of contrary opinion could only engender hatred and enmity.

Mr. Jansen spoke for the negative. He believed that the creation of a wool board by the present Government was an excellent thing because it meant that no longer could American buyers and buyers of other large concerns overseas determine the price level in their own interest. This was desirable because it restored true competition.

Pip Piper vigorously attacked the present Government's education policy. He pointed out that there was a grave shortage of teachers and the situation was certain to get worse if the present Government continued in office. Not one new school, not already started in the Labour regime, had been opened and there was going to be more and more children demanding classrooms and teachers. Poor salaries and abominable working conditions were driving teachers away from their vocations.

Maurice O'Brien ranged over points made by many other speakers and contested them on factual grounds. He supported, of course, the negative. He denied Conrad's contention with respect to the education grant; "it had been larger than ever." He denied that a tough policy toward militant unions drove them into the arms of the Communists and instanced the Auckland Carpenters as an example.

T. Beaglehole, although disapproving of many actions of the present Government, particularly the Emergency Regulations and the refusal of the Auckland Town Hall to the Leader of the Opposition, was convinced that the people of New Zealand supported the present Government.

Jim Milburn, sartorially exquisite as ever, mightily orated the meeting with a Machiavellian power analysis. Cynics have accused Jim of facing both ways and sitting on the fence in the past, and I am sure that Jim would have done nothing to make them alter that opinion last Friday evening. He shrewdly pointed out that by capturing the Labour Party's "hunt the Reds" programme and extending it, the National Party had left their opponents with precious little of a policy at all. The constant Press thundering on patriotism and the foreign menace would ensure success for the present office holders. There was nothing like flag-wagging to win an election.

Hector MacNeill emphasised that the farming and meat interests in New Zealand had been greatly hurt by Tory subservience to overseas capital and quoted the views of Ormond of the Meat Board and Scott-Davidson of the Farmers Federation to support this contention.

Summary and Decision

Frank Curtin summed up by answering specific points raised by speakers from the floor and stated that his case stood or fell on the Government's industrial policy.

Conrad summed up by saying that the Nationalists' election policy was unqualified. He quoted Mr. Bowden: "We will deal effectively with inflation"; he did not say that we will deal effectively if Stalin lets us. Foreign policy was the worst aspect for it was dictated by foreign blood blinded militarists.

The judge, Mr. Benda, of the Political Science Dept, assessed Jim Milburn as the best speaker of the evening. The motion was lost by 20 votes to 14. For a thoroughly enjoyable evening everyone should attend future meetings of this society.

—Desparde.