The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) THURSDAY, MARCH 20th, 1924. UNEMPLOYMENT AT HOME.

Hokitika Guardian, 20 March 1924, Page 2

The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) THURSDAY, MARCH 20th, 1924. UNEMPLOYMENT AT HOME.

I Ihe crucial test of the Labor Govornj merit- at Home centres round the quesItion oi unemployment. It is too eaily to praise or condemn in regard to this matter, hut it is not surprising to find I that some of the Government critics are impatient for signs of remedial action, and both in Parliament, and in I the press criticism is being made. The I “Daly Mail”, for example states, in ; a leading article : “It is painfully clear that the Government has no specific for the grave disease of unemployment, nothing to suggest but larger doles for all, resulting in further demands upon the taxpayer and manufacturer.” Even if this were correct, which it does not happen to be, remarks the New Zealand Times, the policy of doles did not originate with the Labour Government. Such a policy moreover, is notoriously very difficult to break away from ; and all that can he fairly said as yet is that the Government, in order to bridge the interval which must elapse before more radical measures can be got under way, is continuing the doles policy introduced by its predecessors. Again, Sir William Beach Thomas, writing in the “Daily Kxpiess,” declares that “The grim fact remains that no real rare for the (unemployment) problem is being attempted.” “After the fourth winter,” lie says, “unemployment in Britain is most intense, beyond the precedent of any country. Still at the aeiite.st stage of unemployment prior to the war 300,000 persons emigrated annually. The post-war figure is 30,000, yet there are rich land overseas, half-continents, not carrying two persons to the square mile, thirsting for development.” Clearly, if any British Government is to blame for this state of affairs, it is previous Governments, not the present Government, which has only been a very few weeks in power. No Government could possibly in so short a time carry out measures that

would even begin to swell the volume of tho tide of Empire migration from 30,000 to 300,000 per annum. Previous Governments have tried their hands at encouraging such migration ; and the 30,000 per annum is tho measure of their failure, not of that of the new Government. Before tho Labour Government is condemned on this count it should be given a fair trial. It should, at least, be given time to show its hand. It may be, of course, that the Labour Government does not greatly favour State-stimulated Empire migration'. It may prefer what the late Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman would have called the policy of England colonising first her own countryside ; but it is more probable, we should imagine, in view of tho present serious state of affairs in regard to unemployment in the Old Country, that the Government will run both policies side by side. M’e hold, continues the Times, no brief for the Labour Government. M r e bare no sympathy with the Labour policy, of nationalisisg or “socialising” everything, All we arc contending for is that the Labour Government should have a fair trial; especially in regard to this crucial problem of unemployment-, in regard to which their predecessors in power made, to say the least, a very ineffective showing. Under the circumalnnees it is not to he wondered at that Mr Thomas Shaw, replying in tlie House of Commons to the gibes of the Liberal and Conservative members, remarked that, after only six weeks in office, the Government could not produce schemes for dealing with unemployment like rabbits from hutches.