THE DOLE MUDDLE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22498, 16 February 1935, Page 13

THE DOLE MUDDLE

A MINISTER’S ADMISSION RESIGNATION OFFERED (United 'Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, February 14. The Sun-Herald service says that as a sequel to the dole muddle Mr Oliver Stanley (Minister of Labour) offered to tender his resignation, which Mr Ramsay MacDonald refused to accept, but Mr Stanley may again offer to resign when the House of Commons passes the unemployment measures. Mr Stanley admits that he . and not the Unemployment Assistance Board is responsible for the fiasco. ■ -t. LABOUR’S CENSURE MOTION fßritish Official Wireless.) RUGBY, February 14. The Prime Minister (Mr Ramsay MacDonald) spoke in the debate in the House of Commons on unemployment, which arose on a censure motion moved by Mr Lansbury (Leader of the Opposition). Mr Lansbury criticised in particular the operation by the Unemployment Board, stating that a central bureaucracy had been set up in such haste that neither those who framed it nor those who administered it really 'understood it. The Prime Minister said it would be better if the Opposition, iilstead of criticising, would co-operate with the Government in devising practical schemes to deal with the, problem. The Government would accept with alacrity any proposals provided they were definitely constructive. The Government aimed at getting the unemployed back into industry. The agitation during the last few days would create a feeling of uncertainty, and the statements made were without a shadow of foundation and were apparently more for financial than for jv/.tical purposes. He cited the continued expansion of the steel trade, and said that 1934 had been the best coal year since 1930. Negotiations were proceeding with other countries, and Eromised further reductions in the punier of unemployed. NEW MEMBER’S CLAIM LONDON, 1 February 14. (Received Feb. 15, at 5.5 p.m.) Mr G. Lansbury, in moving Labour’s censure motion, said that despite the Government’s optimism there • vas now one-third more people who had been unemployed'for over a year than in 1931. The figures of pauperism had risen from 369 per 10,000 of population in 1931 to 482, while outside the poor law and employment iiisurancb there was increased unemployment in black-coated workers, which added hundreds of thousands to the total. As there were actually 2,250,000 unemployed there was ho ground for the Government’s claim to victory over unemployment. The Government had failed to recognise that the present economic system had broken down, v- .. ,> ■ . Mr. J. Oleary, the victor In the Wavertree hy-election, claimed that he was returned as an expression of mass resentment at the Government’s policy towards the unemployed. •' Sir Herbert Samuel said the Government had muddled and mishandled unemployment' relief.' Though Mr Stanley made fe brave retreat the country felt the situation should not have arisen. The turning point in the fortunes of the Government came with the failures of the World Economic Conference. The President of the United States maimed it, but it was killed by the British Government’s declaration that whatever other countries did we should maintain our quotas and tariffs. Within three years we had lost half of onr forei.m' trade, and at" the present rate of recovery it would take 11 years to reach the 1929 levej. Then the Government tried to cover its failure by a whole . series of subsidies.

Mr R. J. Boothby (Con.), said that many Conservatives were definitely dissatisfied with the Government’s lack of action in ihe direction of the development of the Empire and the Crown colonies. The country wanted leadership and vision in government.

' Major H. L. Nathan (Lib.) said it was not fear of a general election which caused the foreign selling c f securities in London. It was because in a broadcast talk from Paris on Tuesday it was stated that the recent speculations in commodities in London would involve Britain iii a scandal ' equal to the Stavisky scandals. Replying to the debate, Mr Neville Chamberlain said that, despite January’s seasonal drop in employment, there were still 700,000 more people empl&yed than three years ago. No alternative policy put forward in this or any other tj untry had produced a comparable result. •