UNEMPLOYMENT

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17126, 5 December 1929, Page 15

UNEMPLOYMENT

LABOR’S NEW BILL EXTREMISTS’ REVOLT LONDON, Nov. 21. It is expected that the. Unemployment Insurance Bill, the second reading of which will be debated in the House of Gammons to-morrow, will create the greatest interest and excitement- since the Baldwin Government's legislation immediately after the strike of 1926. The faft that the Government proposes to take £24,5C0,000 from tho Exchequer during the coining year for the dole, representing an increase of £12,500,000, is regarded by Conservatives and some .Liberals as a. glaring example of reckless socialism. Conservative leaders will bring forward an amendment protesting at the increased expenditure as indefensible in the present condition of the country's finances, hut this is unlikely to cause the Government as much embarrassment- ns the “reasoned amendments” which Mr Maxion and his little group of followers propose to move during the committee stage. These extremists, who are mostly Clydeside members, are intensely disappointed with the terms of the bill. They wore openly revolting at the weekend, bat Mr MacDonald addressed them and oilier Labor members persuasively yesterday, and somewhat tempered the disgrunl lenient. Twenty or 30 Labor members are at present so adamant, in their intention to express dissatisfaction and to secure belter dole payments that the -Ministers view tho situation anxiously. Probably the Liberals will mostly abstain from voting and, therefore, any Labor defection will be a moral, if not a material handicap. P seems that the Government will have to depend on the extremists for assistance during the second reading, but during tho committee stage the Conservatives will undoubtedly support the Government’s views against the amendments which disappointed Labor Members intend lodging to almost every clause. The Government's defeat- is unlikely, hut humiliation is highly probable. I>l FFTC'UT-iTIES OF E l NANCE The question which is most widely being asked, is from where, is tho money to come for unemployment insurance. A fund to which the Government, employers, and employees contribute ordinarily pays the dole. This fund, however, is not only bankrupt, but already owes tho Government nearly £40,000.000, which Parliament sanctioned. The. fund, therefore, is unable to finance the increased disbursements which must come from the Treasury. That envisages fresh taxation in 1950:.’ 'Tho Budget will bear the scars of the present battle. This explains why Mr. Snowden is to-day as much bated by the Labour extremists as by the Conservative diehards. He alone lias stood out against larger benefits, and has gradually won a majority of tin' Cabinet to his way of thinking.' He halved the amount which it was originally proposed the Treasury should contribute. A ‘White Paper shows that the amount expended on unemployment insurance in England and Wales increased from £9,750,000 in 1921 to £38,250,000 m 1928. The estimated expenditure for 1929 is £47,500,000. Social services expenditure increased from £271,500,000 in 1921. to £322,590.000 in 1928. Figures for 1891 and 1911 were, respectively, £20,000,000 and £55,000,000. The term social services, embraces education, housing, pensions, and health, as well as the dole. PRESS COMMENT The Morning Post calls this mounting cost “the pauperising of a proud people, ’ and is attacking llic gradual growth of the masses’ dependence on the State in a series of vigorous articles. These emphasise that the Labor Government has already committed the State to an increased' annual expenditure of £20.000,009, which it regards as only a preliminary instalment to tho final cost of socialism to Britain. The journal adds: “Laboritcs have two policies for making pleasant and profitable the life of unemployed, namely a narrower policy for the immediate present which it boldly states, and a wider one for the near future which it gently adumbrates. The Government s Unemployment Insurance Bill will do more than nibble at the narrower policy. Other Conservative papers are also attacking the measure, and Liberal joilr,mls are adopting a neutral attitude, while those labelling themselves politically independent are silent.