STATE CODDLING

Greymouth Evening Star, 4 March 1943, Page 6

STATE CODDLING

‘RACE OF MICAWBERS”

State “molly-coddling” and the danger of too much social security without social responsibility were referred to by Mr. David W. Smith, General Manager of the Halifax Building Society, at the annual meeting of the Yorkshire County Building Societies’ Association, at Leeds recently, in acknowledging a gift to mark his recent retirement from the Chairmanship of the Building Societies’ Association.

Referring to the “miracle” of the “Little Man’s” savings and revenue contributions, Mr. Smith said: — “I believe that the State should not merely inculcate thrift but "" make clear to the world that it intends to insure and safeguard thrift against any form of penalty or expropriation. This would nave a great fillip to a sense of individual responsibility for social security and be a powerful aid to the restoration of national prosperity. Too much State molly-cod-dling or sapping of the spirit of individual responsibility and self-help by penalising the thrifty and enterprising for the benefit of the shiftless will breed a nation of Micawbers, socially spineless and bankrupt of the will to self-help,” continued Mr. Smith.

“We do not want a race of people who are perpetually ‘waiting for something to turn up,’ particularly in the shape of Government assistance, to solve their economic and social problems. I hope that in the post-war era every member of society will have the opportunity of enjoying a fair standard of living in accordance with his personal effort and contribution to the good of the community. But I sincerely hope that the pre-war tendency to regard the National Exchequer as a bonanza providing sops for the unfortunate and undeserving alike, regardless of its effect on the industrious and provident, will be replaced by a sturdier spirit of determination to deserve social security by individual virtue and mutual aid.”

He pleaded for post-war recognition of the building societies and similar institutions representing tens of thousands of thrifty men and women. The spiritual core of Britain was the capacity of its people for hard work, thrift, sturdy independence, mutual help, healthy individualism, and a passionate urge towards home ownership and a stake in the country—and typified in the building society movement. Of post-war planning, Mr. Smith also said this: —

“I am all for planning in the broad sense of the term —the planning that will prevent major disasters in the stategical, industrial, hygienic and aesthetic lay-out of the new Britain —but Government control and development should be .limited by these factors. Public need must take precedence over private interest; some extension of control is imperative. But nobody is betwr aware than the Ministry of Health and the Board of Trade that the housing and industrial progress of this country has been primarily due to the enterprise and courage of private enterprise. I view with apprehension the turning over to another vast army of officials complete control ol: planning down to the minutest detail. With such powers officials could impose restrictions on house and land ownership which would make the Englishman’s home no longer his castle. The presentation to Mr. Smith was made by the Earl of Harewood.