The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINK LINEA." THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1924. UNEMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19058, 10 July 1924, Page 4

The Wanganui Chronicle. "NULLA DIES SINK LINEA." THURSDAY, JULY 10, 1924. UNEMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

In two things of the first importance the Labour Government in Britain appears to have failed very badly. These are the two things about which, as candidates for place and power, the leaders of the Labour Party were most confident. On the hustings they intimated that if they were placed in possession of the Government benches they would produce a “positive remedy” for the evil of unemployment, and would also solve the housing problem in a practical manner. They were taken at their word.'' They have been in office for many months, and, although in a minority in the House, any practical proposals for the solution of these two grave problems would assuredly have received the sympathetic support of most, if not all, of the members of the Opposition parties. But the Labour leaders with their surecurc nostrums have not proved equal to their opportunity; and the disappointed country now knows, and in particular the worklcss men and women know, that they have no unemployed policy at all, and never had. The alluring prospect of their “positive remedy” for unemployment was but a deception and a snare. When twitted with this tragic failure sonic weeks ago, Mr. Tom Shaw, the Minister of Labour in the MacDonald Cabinet, protested that ho eould not produce unemployment schemes like rabbits out of a hat. Sir W. Joynson-Hieks retorted that nothing had como out of Mr. Shaw’s hat [but one or two white mice, and this derisive statement is described by Mr. |Lovat Fraser (a well-known writer on affairs) qT correctly illustrat-

ing the situation. So fur, the Government whose members so definitely promised to find work for the workers has been able to offer nothing better than increased doles. So, too, with the housing problem. In this case certain ambitious proposals have been formulated. Indeed, the suggested expenditure under what is known as the Wheatley scheme is prodigious. It begins with a modest contribution from the State this year of £278,000, and from the Local Authorities of £135,000; but it rises to a maximum in 1940-41 of £23,156,000 from the State and £11,250,000 from the Local Authorities. The anual cost continues at this figure until 1964-65, when it begins to decline; but the liability will not bo finally wiped out until 1980. The country is prepared to yay liberally for a sound housing policy; but whether Mr. Wheatley’s policy is either sound or economical is a matter upon which his critics differ strongly with him. As a matter of fact it would seem that the Minister has failed completely to convince his critics either in the House of Commons or anywhere else that his housing scheme is practical policy. It has been condemned as being unattractive even on paper, and it is at present only a paper project. On the financial side it is heavily overweighed. Each Wheatley house is to cost the State twice as much as each Chamberlain house under the Act of last year. To a Socialist Minister this may seem merely a trivial detail; but the taxpayer will naturally want to know what additional benefit he is to get for the practical doubling of the State subsidy. From the national point of view, the main consideration is that housing accommodation should be increased; and the fact is indisputable that the Chamberlain scheme has provided a stimulus to building, though it has the fatal defect in the eyes of a Socialist Minister that it worked largely through private enterprise. The Wheatley scheme has in view the provision of houses to let—that is, cardinal—and as new houses cannot be built to let at pre-war rents, plus the permitted percentages of increase, the result is that the State is compelled to double the subsidy under the Chamberlain scheme. Moreover, houses cannot be built without materials and labour, and as to the ?nftieiency of these essentials the Government has been unable to offer the slightest guarantee.