Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, MARCH 31st., 1930. UNEMPLOYMENT

Greymouth Evening Star, 31 March 1930, Page 4

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. MONDAY, MARCH 31st., 1930. UNEMPLOYMENT

*”jpHE report that Mr. J. H. Thomas is to resign his position as Minister of Unemployment, may have grounds of accuracy, although such a step would be a confession of failure by the MacDonald Ministry to perform a fundamental task, and would be also a striking commentary on the severe criticisms the Labourites dealt out to the Baldwin Ministry on its failure to abolish the main evils of unemployment. Doubtless, Mr. Thomas would be glad to lay down the burden of having to solve a problem

that has baffled more experienced men, but should he resign, would his successor have any prospect of greater achievement? Mr. Thomas has not-spared himself in endeavouring to find more avenues for employment for Homeland workers, but the fruits of his energy and travels have been disappointing. His main critics come from Labour ranks. During the past few months, several meetings have been held at which plain speaking

was indulged in. A typical comment was that from Mr. E. Sandham, M.P. for Kirkdale. He declared that he was “profoundly dissatisfied.” The Cabinet had failed to do as much as it ought to have done to carry out its pledges to provide work and maintenance, and Mr. Thomas was bound to fail because his whole policy was based on the assumption that they were suffering from un-der-production, when, as a matter

of fact, the country was suffering* from over-production. His policy was the very antithesis of Socialism. If the Labour Government | could not provide work it ought at least to have kept its pledge to provide decent maintenance. Nobody would attempt to assert that they had provided decent maintenance. “If you want a change you will have to alter the whole stupid procedure of the House of Commons,” Mr. Sandham declared. “There are just as many sick of the whole silly game as I am. If the Government had carried its Socialist policy to the House of Commons it would

have gone down, but it would have gone down on its principles, which is far better than going down deserting one’s principles.” Other ultimatums have bieen presented to the MacDonald Ministry by their “supporters,” and some interesting developments may occur shortly. Those other countries which have an unemployment problem to solve should take special note of the Homeland’s Labour Ministry’s failure, which proves that the political colour of a Cabinet has little to do with the solving of the question. New Zealand Labourites, who are told that were

their Party in power, the troubles of the workless would be over, must ask why Homeland Labour has not succeeded. None can doubt the sincerity of the efforts by Mr. MacDonald and his colleagues, but circumstances are too much for them. It can be assumed that every political party is desirous of minim- > ising unemployment, and the less party politics is mixed with the problem, the better for all concerned. Unemployment is an economic disease that will take a long time to cure, and it is doubtful if much more than alleviation is really possible at the present juncture. The world wants time to recover from the economic blows its commerce has received through the re- * suits of the war-losses, and those who claim to produce immediate or early cures are liable to charges . of quackery.